1987 PLP 48 (PLC)

Azmatullah Khan for Appellant. Date of hearing: 10th August, 1986. This is an appeal, filed by the Karachi Transport Corporation, Karachi, against an impugned order, dated 12‑5‑1986, passed by the learned Sind Labour Court No. II, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent was employed in the appellant‑Corporation as a conductor. That on 10‑5‑1984. he was issued a charge‑sheet alleging therein that while he was on duty on Bus No. 174, he did not issue tickets to 8 passengers who were travelling from 'K' Area, Korangi to Saddar and the 6 passengers travelling from Korangi No. 2 to Saddar, though he had realized the fare amount from them. That, an initial report was made on T.T.40 at the spot and obtained the explanation of the respondent. That, as the reply to this charge‑sheet was not found satisfactory, therefore, a domestic enquiry was ordered to be conducted by Mr. Abdul Rasool, A.T.M./E.O. as the Enquiry Officer. That as consequence of this domestic enquiry, the respondent was dismissed from service, vide order, dated 14‑3‑1985, and hence, he submitted a grievance petition before the Labour Court.

3. The appellant Corporation, in their reply statement before the Labour Court had raised an objection on the maintainability of the grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 as the respondent did not serve the mandatory grievance notice upon the appellant Corporation. That, on facts, the appellant Corporation has admitted that the respondent was their workman but his work was not satisfactory, therefore, he was properly and validly charge‑sheeted for a misconduct and subsequently, he was dismissed from service on the findings of the Enquiry Officer in a domestic‑enquiry. That the domestic enquiry was conducted properly and in accordance with the provisions of Law and in view of this, the grievance petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned representative of the appellant‑ Corporation. The only point is% whether the dismissal of the respondent was proper and valid. That no independent witness was examined by the appellant‑Corporation in the domestic enquiry as only the reporter was examined and his evidence is hearsay. Therefore, the burden was on the appellants to prove the charge against the respondent, which they failed to do so. Likewise, in the domestic enquiry, no passenger was confronted with the respondent conductor and the evidence with regard to the fact that the tickets were not given to the passengers and the fare was realized. Such an evidence is lacking. The witness o the appellant‑Corporation also could not say whether at the time of checking of the bus of the respondent, the checking party had also checked the cash of the respondent. Thus, the allegation of recovery of fare from the ticketless passengers by the respondent is not proved. Therefore, the conclusion drawn in the domestic enquiry was wrong. Without establishing the factum that passengers were charged and the tickets were not issued no case is made out against the respondent conductor. The safest course is that in the domestic enquiry some passengers may be examined.

5. The conclusion drawn by the Labour Court is correct and I need not interfere with the impugned order. I, therefore, uphold the order of the learned Labour Court and hereby dismiss the appeal in limine. However, I would not allow the back benefits to the respondent. S.Q. Appeal dismissed.