1990 PLP 460 (PLC)

Khalilur Rehman, Representative for Appellant. Gul Muhammad Soomro Representative for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th May, 1989. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Labour Court No. IV at Karachi, dated 7‑12‑1988, whereby grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The brief facts lading. to this appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Conductor with the respondents. He alleges that because of his involvement in the Trade Union activities, the respondent tried to implicate him in false cases and checking party comprising of four members forcibly and under coercion took his signature on blank T.T. 40 form alongwith eight tickets valued at Rs.14 on 16‑3‑1988, when he was performing duties in a bus. He was charge -sheeted for not issuing tickets after realising fare from eight passengers and after domestic enquiry he was dismissed from service. After serving grievance notice upon the respondents he filed grievance application which was dismissed vide impugned order.

3. I have heard Mr. Khalilur Rehman, learned representative for the appellant and Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro, learned representative for the respondents.

4. The main contention of Mr. Khalilur Rehman is that the passengers from whom the appellant is alleged to have charged the fare but did not issue tickets have neither been examined before the Enquiry Officer nor before the learned Labour Court and as such the charge levelled against the appellant cannot be said to have been proved. He had relied upon a decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No. KAR‑350 of 1980 Messrs Karachi Transport Corporation v. Ghulam Ali wherein it has been held that where persons who have alleged to have been charged fare without being issued tickets were not examined either before Enquiry Officer or before the Labour Court the charge cannot be held to be proved against the accused person. Reference in this case has also been made to the decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No. KAR‑308 of 1985. It may also be pointed out that the reply statement in this case appears to have been filed by Sardar Asad Qadir Durrani. This reply statement is not verified on oath. Sardar Asad Qadir Durrani in his affidavit‑in‑evidence has neither referred to this written statement nor has he affirmed the contents of written statement on oath to he correct in his affidavit‑in‑evidence, nor has he stated that the same be treated as part of evidence nor he reiterated contents of reply statement in his affidavit‑in‑evidence. Averments of the reply statement, therefore, cannot be taken into consideration as evidence in rebuttal in the instant case.

5. The appellant in the Labour Court has denied to have charged any fare without issuing tickets from any passenger and as such the burden shifted upon the respondents to prove the charges. No doubt Enquiry Officer has been examined before the learned Labour Court but neither the persons from whom the fare was charged without issuing tickets have been examined nor any member of checking party has been examined before the Labour Court. The mere production of enquiry report containing statement of witnesses without examining these witnesses before the Labour Court cannot be considered as sufficient proof of the alleged charges against the appellant.

6. Considering all these facts, in my opinion, from evidence on record charges cannot be held to be proved against the appellant and as such the impugned order of dismissal is not sustainable. I accordingly, allow this appeal and order the reinstatement of the appellant with no order as to back benefits. A.E./1456/Lb. S Appeal allowed.