1988 PLP 279 (PLC)

‑‑S.8‑A‑‑Dismissal for misconduct of office‑bearer of Workers Trade Union‑‑Permission of Registrar‑‑Intimation regarding appointment of accused as Member of Executive Body of Trade Union conveyed on same day on which dismissal order passed‑‑No proof that such intimation reached authority passing dismissal order before passing such order‑ Absence of permission of Registrar, held, was not material. S.M. Abbas Qureshi for Appellant. Maqbool Anees for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th February, 1987. This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 1‑12‑1986 recorded by learned Labour Court No.9, Multan, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. The allegation against the respondent was that he has misappropriated fare money of Rs.7.50 without issuing tickets to four passengers from whom he had received the said fare. No doubt the passengers who had informed the checker that they had paid the fare but tickets had not been issued to them, had neither been examined during the inquiry nor their statements were recorded at the time of checking but since the respondent in answer to T.T.40 said that the passengers had made false statement and that he had A not realized the fare, it means that the passengers had in his presence stated that they had paid the fare and thus he stood confronted with them. In cases where there is no evidence that the passengers had in the presence of the conductor informed the checker that they had paid the fare, the statement of the checker is merely hearsay. The Labour Court did not consider the reply of the respondent to T.T.40 and thus, appears to have fallen in error that there was no evidence of the recovery of the fare by the respondent from the passengers.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has also argued that the order of dismissal is in violation of section 8‑A, I. R.O. inasmuch as no permission was taken by the Registrar to dismiss the respondent. No doubt the respondent was appointed member of executive body and intimation was sent to the employer but it was conveyed on the same date on which order of dismissal was passed. According to R .10 which is the copy of the relevant entry made in the receipt register, the letter was received by a clerk and not by the District Manager himself. No question was put to R.W.2 if the letter was placed before the District Manager, and if so on what date. If this letter had been received in the office of the District Manager few days or even one day before the order of dismissal was passed, there could have been B some scope to presume that the District Manager got the knowledge of the fact that the respondent had been appointed the member of executive body of the C. B. A. In these circumstances absence of permission of the Registrar was not material.

4. So far as inquiry is concerned learned counsel for the respondent has not pointed out any defect therein which means that the respondent was afforded proper opportunity of hearing before he was dismissed. He had in his statement made before the inquiry officer said that he did not want to examine any witness in defence. He extensively cross‑examined the prosecution witness. He has been thus wrongly directed by the lower Court to be re‑instated in service.

5. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside impugned decision, the grievance petition of the respondent dismissed. A.E. /301/Lb.P