1992 PLP 1121 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1121 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION |
| Primary Law | (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1121 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1121 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1121 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Latif Saghar for Appellant.
- Gul Muhammad Soomro, Representative for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th October, 1990.
- 2. I have heard Mr. Ch. Mohammad Latif Saghar, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr Gul Mohammad Soomro, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
Headnotes / Summary
S.25-A
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15(1)(ii)(a)
Dismissal from service-- Appellant, a Conductor under Road Transport Corporation was checked by Checking Squad
Number of ticket less passengers were found travelling-- Conductor was found to have extra cash when searched
Conductor realised amount from passengers but did not issue them tickets
Conductor, after domestic inquiry was dismissed from service
Passengers were not examined by the Enquiry Officer or Labour Court
Charge against Conductor thus could not be said to have been proved
Conductor was ordered to be reinstated in service without back benefits.
Judgment & Decree
Gul Muhammad Soomro, Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th October, 1990. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer Vth Sindh Labour Court at Karachi, dated 10-1-1990, whereby the grievance application of the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Ch. Mohammad Latif Saghar, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr Gul Mohammad Soomro, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The brief facts of the case are, that the appellant was admittedly Conductor employed by the respondents. The appellant was admittedly a Conductor on Bus No. 868-837 on 8-9-1987, when the bus was checked by the Checking Squad consisting upon Inspector Abdul Qayyum, Ali Akbar and Raqib Gul under the supervision of Mr. Anwar Ali. The checking party found 7 persons on the bus who were ticket less passengers and Rs. 125.25 in excess in the cash available with the appellant. Such TT-40 containing the aforesaid allegations was issued which was signed by the appellant in which, he denied the charges and explained about the cash which was found from him. The appellant was charge-sheeted on 14-9-1987 and in the domestic enquiry he was found guilty. He was therefore dismissed from service vide order dated 4-5-1988. The appellant served grievance notice and then filed the grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.
4. The TT-40 does not show that passengers who were not issued the tickets and from whom the appellant allegedly charged the fare were confronted with the appellant. Those passengers have also not been examined either before the Enquiry Officer or before the learned Labour Court. This Tribunal has been persistently holding that in such cases, the charge of taking the fare from passengers without issuing the tickets cannot be held proved against the Conductor. Similar view has been taken by the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in number of cases. This charge therefore, that the appellant took fare from the seven passengers without issuing the tickets does .not appear to be proved. ` " .5
5. The second charge against the appellant is that he was found in possession of excess cash of about Rs. 125.25. Appellant has tried to explain the possession of cash stating that Rs. 68 were his own while Rs. 80 he had taken from Rezgariwala.
6. Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro contends that according to the agreement between the C.BA. and the respondents no Conductor could keep, in his personal cash of not more than Rs.30 as Rezgari. Even if this charge is held to be proved, and even if this agreement between the C.B.A. and the e respondents is held to have the force of rule, still it would constitute of misconduct under Standing Order 15(1)(ii)(a) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 the punishment of which is not dismissal from service. The order of dismissal is therefore not sustainable.
7. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and the order of dismissal issued by the respondents are set aside and the appellant is ordered to be reinstated in service. Under the circumstances, no back benefits are awarded. The order to be implemented within one month. M.Y.H./1773/Lb.S Appeal allowed.