1983 PLP 1016 (PLC(CS))
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MUHAMMAD ALI
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1016 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MUHAMMAD ALI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1016 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1016 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1016 (PLC(CS)) (PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MUHAMMAD ALI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Date of hearing : 29th January, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial dispute‑ ‑‑Misconduct‑Misappropriation ‑ Bus Conductor found having received fare from four passengers but no tickets issued‑Defence plea that he was in process of issuing tickets when checked by checking party‑Four passengers sitting in two separate sets and not together‑Accused, in circumstances, held, if had no intention of fraud would have issued tickets to one set of two passengers simul taneously with recovery of fare and thereafter would have recovered fare from other set of passengers‑Defence plea in circumstances, held, not reliable and afterthought‑‑Dismissal from service upheld by Appellate Tribunal setting aside order of Labour Court awarding re‑instatement‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A &
37. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal arises from the decision dated 28th March, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefit.
2. Bus No. 9597 conducted by the respondent was checked on 14th February, 1977. It was found that he had realised fare from four passengers but had not issued tickets to them. There were two other passengers and three students from whom the respondent had not yet recovered fare, nor till then had issued tickets. The plea taken by the respondent was that he had recovered fare from four passengers and was in the process of issuing tickets when the checking party came and snatched the R. P. T. from him, with the result that he could not issue tickets. Four passengers were in two sets, one consisted of a lady and a student from whom 80 paisas as fare had been recovered. The other set consisted of two lady passenger: from whom also 80 paisas had been recovered. Since all the four passengers were not together, the plea of the respondent that he was in the process of issuing tickets is not helpful to him. As soon as fare recovered, ticket is issued. If the respondent had no intention to defraud the appellant, he would have issued tickets to one set of two passenger simultaneously with the recovering of fare and, thereafter, would have recovered fare from the other passengers. In cross‑examination it was not suggested to Mr. Anwarul Haq Checker, that the respondent was in the process of issuing tickets to the passengers from whom he had recovered fare. The plea is, therefore, afterthought. The misappropriation was duly proved. Statement of one of the passengers was recorded at the spot which supported the prosecution case. The offence was, therefore, duly proved. The learned lower Court wrongly directed the reinstatement of the respondent.
3. As upshot of the observations made above, y I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, restore the order of dismissal and dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent. Appeal accepted.