1988 PLP 484 (PLC)

The decision dated 18‑6‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.l Lahore has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with full, back benefits.

2. The allegation against the respondent was that he had realised bus fare from 14 passengers but did not issue tickets and thus misappropriated the money. During inquiry only the checker was examined as a prosecution witness. No statements of the alleged without ticket passengers were recorded at the time of checking nor in T T‑40 it is mentioned that the respondent was confronted with the passengers who are alleged to have told the checker that they had paid the fare to the respondent. The checker not being a witness of the payment of fare, his evidence was hearsay. His evidence could only corroborate the testimony of the without ticket passengers so far as the question of recovery of fare is concerned. Since none of the said passengers was examined, the statement of the checker remained only a hearsay evidence and thus it is quite unsafe to rely upon it and was rightly rejected by the learned lower Court. This is true that the passengers not being under the control of the appellant could not be forced to be produced before the Inquiry Officer but what they had stated could be recorded by the checker and got signed by them. If they happened to refuse to sign the statement, fare could have been charged from them by the checker and if they had failed to pay fare, they could be expelled from the bus. In this way the passengers could be forced to sign the statement if any made by them before the checker in the presence of the respondent and the said statement could be produced in the inquiry in corroboration of the statement of the checker. If in TT‑40 it is mentioned that the conductor concerned had been duly confronted with the without ticket passengers on the point of recovery of the fare by him and yet the conductor fails to give satisfactory reply to the report, it may be said that he was duly offered opportunity to challenge the statements of the passengers who had stated that they had paid the fare. Since even in TT‑40 this fact is not mentioned, it is manifest that the appellant failed to prove that the respondent had in reality realised the fare. So the allegation of recovery of fare and its misappropriation had not been established. The respondent may be guilty of negligence or due to rush may have failed to recover the fare and to issue tickets. Single act of negligence not being misconduct the respondent could not be dismissed he was thus rightly directed by the learned lower Court to be reinstated in service.

3. So far as the question of allowing back benefits is concerned the reason is that the respondent stated that he remained jobless right from the date of dismissal and the appellant failed to rebut the statement. Thus, the direction in this respect too is justified and does not require any interference.

4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. A.E. /1372/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.