1986 PLP 824 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 19th January, 1986. Syed Mushtaque Ali, the Conductor filed an application under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, for re‑instatement with back benefits. The facts which give rise to the present appeal are that on 3‑11‑1983, while he was on duty, his Bus No. 966 was checked by a checking party, consisting of Rais Hussain, Inspector and Muhammad Latif and they found 7 passengers travelling without tickets and the respondent had realised fare from them. Therefore, he was charge‑sheeted and this was followed by a domestic enquiry in which the respondent Conductor was subsequently, dismissed. The respondent pleaded that he is innocent.

2. The stand taken by the Corporation in the reply statement is that the respondent was posted as Conductor at New Karachi Depot and he was issued a charge‑sheet for committing a fraud. A proper domestic enquiry was held and the statement of the reporter was recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the presence of the respondent. The Enquiry Officer held the respondent guilty of misconduct. Thereafter, the respondent was transferred to Orangi Nala Depot, Karachi.

3. The learned Labour Court framed an issue whether the impugned dismissal was illegal or invalid.

4. The allegation against the Conductor was that the respondent did not issue, tickets to seven passengers with mala fide intention, though he had‑realised fare from them. A checking party has checked his bus and found seven ticketless passengers. Subsequently, in the domestic enquiry only one Inspector was examined while the respondent adopted his reply to the charge‑sheet as his final statement and he was not cross‑examined. On 'the basis of this evidence the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charge of misconduct against the respondent has been established. The burden to prove the charge against the respondent was on the appellant Corporation, but, they have chosen to examine only one witness Mr. Raees Hussain, Inspector and they had neither recorded the statement of any ticketless passenger at the spot, nor the Corporation had produced any such passenger or his statement before the Enquiry Officer to establish the charge of fraud against the respondent Conductor.

5. In these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on a solitary statement of Inspector, Raees Hussain. In an identical case reported in the case of Punjab Road Transport Board v. Mahmoodul Hassan 1985 PLC 813, it was held by the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal that in order to prove the charge it is essential that at least the statements of the passengers concerned should be recorded at the time of checking and the statements made by the passengers in the presence of the Conductor may be produced before the Enquiry Officer, if the passengers for their convenience cannot be produced in the enquiry in person. Overall the enquiry was not believed to be valid by the Labour Court. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of theta learned Labour Court. However, I would maintain the re‑instatement of the respondent Conductor but would not allow the back benefits.

6. The learned representative of the appellant Corporation has conceded to the order of re‑instatement but he prayed that the back benefits' may not be given as it would unnecessarily burdened the Corporation. I accept this plea of the appellant Corporation.

7. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed in limine. A.E.???????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.