1989 PLP 872 (PLC(CS))

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (w11 of 1969)

S. 25-A--Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct--Bus conductor alleged to have received fare without issuance of tickets--Neither ticketless passengers nor any member of checking party nor Enquiry Officer examined before Labour Court

Allegation denied by accused--Mere production of enquiry report containing statements of witnesses without examining such witnesses before Labour Court, held, would not be sufficient in rebuttal of assertions of accused. 1968 P L C 701 ref. Narayan Das for Appellants. Date of hearing: 10th January, 1989. This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. I at Karachi, dated 10-10-1988.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was admittedly a workman of the appellants employed as a Conductor of the bus. He is alleged to have charged fare from certain passengers without issuing the tickets, which was detected by the checking party. He was charge-sheeted and after enquiry he was dismissed from service. The respondent after giving grievance notice to the appellants filed grievance petition which was allowed by the learned Labour Court holding that the domestic enquiry was not fair or legal as it was held in piece meal by 3 different enquiry officers.

3. I have heard Mr. Narayan Das, the learned Advocate for the appellants. Admittedly the passengers from whom the respondent is alleged to have charged fare without issuing tickets were not examined either before the Enquiry Officer or before the Labour Court. It has been consistently held by this Tribunal and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal that without examination of such witnesses, the charge cannot be held to be proved against accused person. Reference may be made to a decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No. KAR-368/1985, dated 7-11-1988.

4. It is also an admitted fact that none the members of checking party was examined before the Labour Court nor the Enquiry Officer was examined who had examined the person who had detected the alleged misconduct of the respondent The written statement is not verified on oath. Admittedly the person who had verified the written statement has not been examined. As such, even, this on statement cannot be considered as a piece of evidence. Reliance is placed on PLD 1972 SC

25. The respondent in his statement before the learned Labour Court had denied the allegation that he had charged any fare from any passenger without issuing ticket. As such, burden was shifted upon the appellant to rebut his this statement of the respondent. As pointed above, there was no evidence to rebuttal before the learned Labour Court. The mere production of enquiry report containing the statements of witnesses without examining those witnesses before the Labour Court, cannot be considered as sufficient proof in rebuttal. In the case, reported in 1908 P L C 701, a learned Judge of Allahabad1 High Court has observed that "when an order of dismissal of a workman Is challenged in industrial adjudication, the Tribunal has to see whether the l domestic enquiry held by the employer was fair and proper:" In view of the above circumstances, I agree with the opinion of the learned Labour Court that the domestic enquiry held in this case was neither fair nor proper. As such, I see no merit in this appeal and dismiss it in limine and the order of the learned Labour Court is upheld. A.E./1384/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.