1976 PLP 25 (PLC)
IFTIKHAR AHMAD Versus ISLAMABAD, OMNIBUS SERVICE
| Citation | 1976 PLP 25 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Rai Abdul Razzaq, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | IFTIKHAR AHMAD Versus ISLAMABAD, OMNIBUS SERVICE |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 25 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 25 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Rai Abdul Razzaq, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 25 (PLC) (IFTIKHAR AHMAD Versus ISLAMABAD, OMNIBUS SERVICE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rdja Abdul Qayyum for Appellant.
- Saadullah Mumtaz for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Omnibus conductor charged of non issuance of tickets to passengers for about 6 miles without charging are-Contention that it could amount to negligence only and not o misconduct warranting removal from service because solitary act of negligence cannot be treated as habitual negligence amounting to misconduct-Question whether such act was negligence or misconduct held, depends upon facts of each case-Conduct of petitioner, held, created doubt and smelt of guilty intention for misappropriation. Application for re-instatement, in circumstances, held, rightly rejected by Junior Labour Court.
Judgment & Decree
Rdja Abdul Qayyum for Appellant. Saadullah Mumtaz for Respondent. This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 8-7-75 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court Rawalpindi on a petition of the appellant filed under section 25-A of the I. R. O., 1969 for re-instatement. His petition was rejected, hence this appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record of the Junior Labour Court as well as the impugned order.
3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant was a Conductor with the respondent. On 11-11-74 his bus was checked at Golra Station. 16 passengers were found without tickets. At the same time appellant had not charged any thing from them up till checking of his bus. Those 16 passengers boarded from Raja Bazar from where the bus started. Golra Station is said to be at a distance of 5/6 miles from Raja Bazar and is also said to be more than half the way of the route of the bus.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has stressed that non-issuance of tickets without charging the passengers cane be termed as misconduct. At the most it is negligence on the part of the Conductor and there is no allegation against the appellant that he is habitually negligent.
5. Whether this is negligence or misconduct depends upon the facts of each case. Bus started from Raja Bazar and all the 16 passengers admittedly boarded from Raja Bazar. In the first instance Conductor should have issued tickets to all the passengers from the place from where it started. He should not have allowed the driver to ply before he had issued tickets to all the passengers. If, at all, he was in hurry, then he should have issued tickets to all the passengers in the way. Conduct of the appellant not to issue tickets till Golra Station creates doubt and smelts of his guilty intention to misappropriate the Government revenue. It must be in the mind of the appellant that he would charge all the 16 passengers when they were to debus the omnibus.
6. In that view of the matter, I see no ground to interfere into the judgment of the Junior Labour Court. It is maintained and appeal is dismissed.