1986 PLP 455 (PLC)
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MUBARIK ALI
| Citation | 1986 PLP 455 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MUBARIK ALI |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 455 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 455 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 455 (PLC) (PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MUBARIK ALI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant.
- Khalid Farooq for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Dismissal for misconduct of embezzlement‑‑Bus Conductor's case‑ Ticketless passengers‑‑Fare alleged to have been realized‑‑Statement of ticketless passengers not recorded and TT‑40 Form not indicating that accused confronted with such passengers‑‑Hearsay evidence of Checker recorded in enquiry‑‑Dismissal on basis of such enquiry not sustainable.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant. Khalid Farooq for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th October, 1985. The decision, dated 13‑11‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has beer, challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits.
2. The allegations against the respondent were that he had realised fare from 13 passengers but had not issued tickets to them. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent admitted his fault in reply to TT‑40 and during the inquiry, therefore, it was not necessary to give him opportunity of defence and that he was rightly dismissed from service‑ As a matter of fact no confession of guilt can be found in reply to TT‑
40. The respondent said that due to the death of his father, he was upset. He also said that he did not know what offence he had committed. However he assured to be careful in future. This does not amount to confession of realising fare and misappropriating the same. Before the Inquiry Officer too he did not make any confessional statement. Hearsay evidence was produced by examining the Checker. No statement of the passengers was recorded at the time of checking, nor TT‑40 shows that the respondent had been confronted with the without ticket passengers. It is generally argued that the passengers are not willing to get their statements recorded at the time of checking, but this is not acceptable. The checker gets information from the passengers concerned whether fare had been recovered by the Conductor. So whatever is stated by the passengers can be easily recorded and the signatures of the said passengers received on it. If they refuse to sign the statement, fare can be recovered from them. If this is done, they would become ready to sign the statements to be saved from paying double fare if they actually have once paid the same to the Conductor. So it is possible to bring on the record evidence of the recovery of fare.
3. However, this argument of the learned counsel for the 1'espondent is without force that an unauthorised person namely Imtiaz had held the inquiry. The respondent admitted in cross‑examination before the learned lower Court that he was informed about the appointment of Mr. Imtiaz as Inquiry Officer.
4. As a result, the appeal having no force is dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.