1994 PLP 548 (PLC)

The appellant has impugned the validity of the order dated 20‑4‑1991 of the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court, Peshawar whereby petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 moved by the petitioner‑respondent was allowed and as a result he was reinstated in his job. The relevant facts giving rise to the litigation between the parties are that the petitioner‑respondent was employed as conductor in the establishment of the appellant who was, however, dismissed from service on 4‑3‑1990 on the charge of misconduct to the effect that he had realised fare from seven persons but had not issued tickets to them and had thus misappropriated that amount. The evidence which was produced at the trial consist of the petitioner who appeared as P.W. 1 and almost reiterated whatever he had averred in the petition. He also dubbed the checking officer as motivated by ulterior motives and previous animosity in involving the petitioner in this case. On the side of the respondent Aman Khan, Enquiry Officer appeared as R.W.

1. He brought on record the various documents pertaining to enquiry proceedings. The learned counsel pleading for the appellant criticised the reasons which had prevailed with the learned Labour Court for exonerating the respondent from the charge as according to him it was not possible for the checking officer to force the passengers who had allegedly paid fare to the petitioner‑respondent to make statement to that effect and similarly the Enquiry Officer had no power to adopt coercive methods to compel those passengers to appear before him in evidence. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order. I studied the record in the‑light of the above submissions. The checking officer was required to have at least ascertained the names of the passengers who had paid the fare to the respondent in case he could not persuade them to make a statement. It is not believable that if the passengers had paid the fare to the respondent then they would have avoided a statement to that effect so as to absolve them of the responsibility. In any case if the checking officer had at least ascertained the address of those passengers then the Enquiry Officer would have been in a position to send for them to appear in the enquiry proceedings. However, even if the Enquiry Officer in absence of coercive measures could not compel the attendance of the witnesses then a request could have been made to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court to force their attendance by adopting coercive measures. If all that as referred to above had been done then the establishment would have been justified to advance the plea that in spite of their efforts they were not in a position to produce the passengers either at the enquiry or in the Labour Court and the Labour Court would have been in a position to issue process to them to appear in evidence. Nothing of the sort as indicated above has been done in this case and, therefore, the benefit in this respect was rightly extended on the basis of the present record to the respondent and it has rightly been held that the charge in these circumstances has not been established. This appeal has, therefore, no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. C.M. also stands disposed of. H.B.T./172/Lb.N ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.