1988 PLP 820 (PLC(CS))

This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 25‑1‑1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan whereby application given by the appellant under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for punishing the respondent has been dismissed.

2. The allegation made against the respondent was that at the time of checking 51 passengers were found without tickets from whom he had realised the fare. TT‑40 is alleged to have been delivered to the respondent but he refused to give any reply. Report was entered in TT‑2 by the checking staff that tickets were issued to without ticket passengers. During the enquiry both the persons who had checked the bus had appeared as prosecution witnesses. The plea of the respondent was that no passenger was without ticket and that none of them had deposed before the checking staff that they had paid the fare. Statements of none of the alleged without ticket passengers were recorded at the spot in the presence of the respondent, nor anyone of them was examined during the enquiry. This is true that the passengers not being under the control of the Enquiry Officer he could not force the to appear in the enquiry but the checking staff can reduce into writing whatever has been deposed before them by the passengers. Needless to say that they get information from the passengers only to the effect whether the fare had been charged by the Conductor or not. So, if a passenger makes a statement that he has paid the fare his statement can be recorded and got signed by him. In some cases it is argued that the passengers are not willing to put their signatures under the statement, therefore, their statements are not recorded. This plea is not accepted. If a passenger refuses to sign the statement he can be treated as without ticket and fare can be charged from him. If this is done, in order to avoid payment of double fare they would agree to sign the statements. Without the statements of the passengers written at the time of checking and without his statement recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the evidence of the checking staff remains hearsay and thus cannot be acted upon. The learned lower Court thus rightly disbelieved the evidence of the checking staff considering it as hearsay and rightly dismissed the application brought under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

3. Since the learned lower Court has not decided any application brought either under section 25‑A or 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 no appeal lies. Appeals can be treated, as revisions but since the appellant has no case it is not necessary to exercise suo motu revisional powers treating the appeal as a revision.

4. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. A.E./526/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.