1993 PLP 1014 (PLC)

Abdul Waheed for Respondent. The appellant calls in question the legality of the judgment delivered by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Peshawar dated 17‑3‑1991 whereby while allowing the grievance petition moved by the respondent, the order imposing penalty on him was set aside.

2. The relevant facts necessitating litigation between the parties are that the respondent was charge‑sheeted for having been found negligent and driving rashly Bus N_. PRT‑474 which collided with a truck and damaged the bus. In reply to the charge‑sheet it was stated that the brake suddenly failed near Gujar Khan which resulted in collusion with the truck. The rash driving and negligence was denied. However, in pursuance of the enquiry report the respondent was held responsible for the accident and by order dated 4‑1‑1989 he was ordered to make payment of Rs.69, 441 as cost of the damage at the rate of Rs.5W per month. The respondent served grievance notice on the appellant but with no avail and thereafter he moved the Labour Court under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance for redress of his grievance. The petition of the respondent was accepted by the impugned order of the Labour Court and accordingly he was exonerated from payment of the cost of damages imposed on him.

3. In the trial Court the respondent appeared as P.W.1 as his own witness and brought on record certain documents while Muhammad Aman Khan, Enquiry Officer appeared to support the stand of the respondent and he also exhibited certain documents on record.

4. The learned counsel pleading for the appellant submitted that the domestic enquiry was conducted by a responsible officer Faridullah Khan who had enquired into the matter on the spot just after the accident who supported the case of the establishment before the Enquiry Officer but the respondent who was all along associated with the enquiry failed to ask him any question in cross‑examination in order to discredit the veracity of his statement. He also submitted that the owner of the truck which was damaged as a result of the accident had also given notice to the department to make up his loss. He was of the view that the Equiry Officer had rightly based his report on the contents of the other relevant file as those were facts relevant for the determination of instant issue. These submissions were opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. I studied the original file in the light of the points raised from the side of the appellant.

6. There is no denying the fact that no eye‑witness of the accident has been produced either before the Enquiry Officer or before the Labour Court and it is rather amazing to note that even the owner or driver of the truck was not produced whose truck was allegedly damaged in the accident. The report of the officer who conducted probe on the spot is not supported by any evidence and, therefore, the report of the Enquiry Officer which is based on that report also lacks support of any evidence to prove the negligence or rash driving or other fault of the respondent. On the one hand it was stated by the concerned officer that brakes could not be checked as the front portion of the bus had been damaged but on the other hand the report exhibited as P.W.1/9 describes the conditions of the brakes as O.K. It is also very curious that even the officer who scribed the accident report was not examined in the Labour Court. Moreover, the respondent could not be found guilty of the accident on account of his previous lapses, if any, contained in the other documents. The learned Labour Court was perfectly justified to term the case of the management as with no evidence and has, therefore, rightly accepted the grievance petition.

7. This appeal has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. C.M. is also disposed of. H.B.T./161/Lb.N Appeal dismissed.