1984 PLP 1182 (PLC(CS))

‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑Prosecution to prove its case first and then accused to rebut if any cogent evidence brought on record‑Bus driver charged for causing accident due to rash and negligent driving resulting in damage to bus ‑No evidence of eye‑witness i. F. Bus Conductor or any passenger or nearby residents recorded- No report or statement of Officer visiting accident spot about application of brakes or marks thereof‑Prices of allegedly damaged articles assessed separately‑Order of recovery of amount on basis of approximate lump sum determined damages, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal ‑ Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3). Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Appellant. Rana Muhammad Ashraf for Respondent. Date of hearing : 25th February, 1984. The decision, dated 22nd March, 1983 passed by the learned Presid ing Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The bus driven by the appellant from Sialkot to Lahore had struck against a tree near village Motra and was damaged. Damages of Rs. 18,000 have been imposed upon the appellant. The learned lower Court has treated the grievance petition as time‑barred and has refused to condone the delay. The grounds of delay were that under the wrong advice of Mr. Muhammad Idrees, Advocate the appellant had brought a suit in the civil Court which after about two years was withdrawn and after service of grievance notice the grievance petition was brought. The learned trial Judge has said that Mr. Muhammad ldrees, Advocate, was not examined. The fact that the civil suit was brought and the same was withdrawn stands established. The statement of the appellant that under the advice of an Advocate duly named by him he bad brought suit does not stand rebutted. The appellant is a layman. He consulted a lawyer who may not be practising on the labour side, so he gave a wrong advice. This is a good ground for excluding the period spent in the wrong forum. So condoning the delay the petition and the grievance notice are treated as within time.

3. In order to prove that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the appellant, the respondent should have examined at least the conductor. He being the employee of the respondent could not have refused to home in the witness‑box. Not only he but even none of the injured passengers was examined. Needless to say that during enquiry the prosecution has to prove its case first and, thereafter, if cogent evidence has come on the record, the employee concerned has to rebut. In the present case no witness of the spot was examined. The A. T. M. had gone to the site after the accident. He said that he bad orally enquired from the passengers about the accident but he did neither record their statements nor obtained their addresses to produce them in the enquiry. Since the accident took place near a village, some persons from the locality who may be present nearby at the time of accident could have been examined in the enquiry to show that the bus was running at an abnormally high speed. The A. T. M. has not said in his report and statement if there were or not marks of the application of brakes and if there were marks, what was the length of the marks ? It would have given an idea about the speed. So no case of recovery of damages was made out. No price of the damaged articles was assessed separately but damages were determined in lump sum approximately.

4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the order of the imposition of damages is vacated. A. E. Appeal accepted.