1988 PLP 509 (PLC)

Khalid Farooq for Appellant. Shamsul Haq for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th January, 1986. The decision dated 30‑7‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No.2 Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.

2. The allegation against the appellant was that he had realised bus fare from two passengers but did not issue tickets and thus misappropriated the money. One passenger is alleged to have boarded the bus from Model Town and the other from Railway crossing and both were going to Railway Station Kot Lakhpat. The plea taken by the appellant in reply to the charge‑sheet was that Kot Lakhpat Railway Station did not fall in route No.65 in 1980 when his bus was checked. PW‑1 a clerk of the respondent produced duty roster Ex.P‑1 dated 30‑11‑1980 and stated that in those days Railway Station Kot Lakhpat was not included in route No.65. In Tr‑40 the place of checking is mentioned as Railway Station Kot Lakhpat. The respondent in his statement deposed that his bus was checked at Township and no irregularities were found. The learned lower Court has said that the checker had deposed that the appellant was using the board of route No.55, therefore, he did not consult the roster. This is wrong. In TT‑40 and charge‑sheet route is given as 65 and not

55. If the appellant had hung the board of route No.55, the checker would have mentioned that route and not a different one. The checkers are expected to know and they do know that a particular route is meant for which locality. The discrepancy rather shows that TT‑40s are not prepared on the spot but afterwards in the office. The checkers may have checked many buses on different routes on that day, so by mistake gave the place of checking as Railway Station Kot Lakhpat instead of Township, which falls on the route No.65. It is, therefore, doubtful if any passenger was without ticket. This is not believable that the respondent plied the bus on a wrong route. There is no material to show that he had some cause or interest in plying the bus on route No.55 instead of the correct route No.65. He knew that if he did so, the drivers and the conductors of the buses who were on duty on route No.55 would object to it and report against him. This is noteworthy that the conductors get commission on the sale of tickets. So if some bus is being unauthorisedly plied on a route, their commission is adversely affected and they cannot tolerate this illegality. Learned lower Court wrongly held that this was a false plea. No statement of any without ticket passenger was recorded to the effect that the bus was being plied on route No.55. The grievance petition of the appellant was, therefore, wrongly dismissed.

3. So far as back benefits are concerned, no doubt the appellant said that he remained jobless, but since he did not point out at earlier opportunity that he was plying the bus on route No.65, he should suffer and feel a pinch. So in the circumstances of the case, he is not entitled to back benefits.

4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. A. E./89/Lb.P Appeal accepted.