1984 PLP 1212 (PLC(CS))
GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, SIALKOT Versus EJAZ AHMAD
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1212 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, SIALKOT Versus EJAZ AHMAD |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1212 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1212 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1212 (PLC(CS)) (GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, SIALKOT Versus EJAZ AHMAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Ashraf for Appellant.
- Asmat Kamal for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 10th December, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial dispute‑ ‑‑ Dismissal for misconduct ‑ Bus conductor's case ‑Ticketless passengers‑Fare allegedly realised ‑ Recovery of fare ‑ Can be proved only by statement of passengers ‑ Statements of such passengers not recorded by checking party‑Statement of ckecker on such point based upon hearsay‑Not reliable ‑ Statement of accused that Police officials travelling in bus refused to purchase tickets ‑ Held : Reliable ‑ Order of Labour Court awarding re instatement of Bus conductor in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).
Judgment & Decree
Industrial dispute‑ ‑‑ Dismissal for misconduct ‑ Bus conductor's case ‑Ticketless passengers‑Fare allegedly realised ‑ Recovery of fare ‑ Can be proved only by statement of passengers ‑ Statements of such passengers not recorded by checking party‑Statement of ckecker on such point based upon hearsay‑Not reliable ‑ Statement of accused that Police officials travelling in bus refused to purchase tickets ‑ Held : Reliable ‑ Order of Labour Court awarding re instatement of Bus conductor in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3). Rana Muhammad Ashraf for Appellant. Asmat Kamal for Respondent. Date of hearing : 10th December, 1983. The appeal titled above emerges from the decision, dated 25th November, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, directing there‑instatement of the respondent in service with back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that he had recovered fare from two passengers but had not issued tickets to them. The plea taken by the respondent in reply to the charge‑sheet was that two policemen traveled who refused to purchase tickets. In reply to TT‑40 the respon dent had pleaded that no passenger was without ticket nor he had recovered fare from any without ticket passenger. No statements of the alleged without ticket passengers were recorded, nor the respondent was confronted with them. Since fare was not recovered in the presence of the checker, his evidence about the recovery of fare was hearsay. Only the without ticket passenger could tell if be had paid or not the fare, Since his statement was not recorded there is no evidence of the recovery of fare by the respondent. Obviously, the information about realization of fare is given to the ‑ checker by the passenger concerned. Such an information can be very well reduced into writing and got signed by the said passenger. It is usually argued that passengers do not get the statements recorded. This is not believable. If a passenger has paid fare, he can have no objection to get his statement recorded. If at all he refused, fare can be recovered from him, because otherwise he is not holding any ticket, The policemen usually when they are in uniform do not purchase tickets, So, the plea of the respondent appears to be correct and was rightly accepted by the learned lower Court. The learned lower Court's decision, therefore, is not exceptional.
3. As a result of what has been said above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.