1986 PLP 445 (PLC)
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus FAIZULLAH
| Citation | 1986 PLP 445 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus FAIZULLAH |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 445 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 445 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 445 (PLC) (PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus FAIZULLAH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant.
- Khalid Farooq for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th September, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Bus conductor charged for embezzlement‑‑Ticketless passenger‑‑Fare alleged to, have been received‑‑Statement of ticketless passenger neither recorded during checking nor T.T. 40 mentioning that accused confronted with such passengers‑‑Mere hearsay evidence of Checker unsafe to be relied upon‑‑Dismissal based upon such evidence‑‑Not sustainable.
Judgment & Decree
Khalid Farooq for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th September, 1985. The decision, dated 25‑9‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.
2. The allegations against the respondent for which he was dismissed after being charge‑sheeted and holing an inquiry against him, were that when the bus conducted by him was checked at Prem Nagar, one passenger was found without ticket who after completing his journey was delighting from the bus. One passenger travelling between Kot to Raiwind and three passengers travelling between Kot to Lahore were without tickets and that the respondent had realised fare from all of them.
3. None of the without ticket passengers was examined at the inquiry, nor their statements were recorded by the Checker at the time of checking and got signed by them and the respondent. Even in TT‑40 it is not mentioned that the respondent was confronted with the said passengers or any of them. Since the Checkers were not present when any fare was recovered by the respondent, their evidence is merely hearsay and thus it is unsafe to rely upon it. I do not find any force in the argument that the passengers are not willing to get statements recorded. This is not true. If they are not willing, fare can be recovered since they have been found ticketless. If this is done, they would become ready to get their statements recorded. The other thing is that in TT‑40 it may be mentioned that the Conductor was duly confronted with the passengers and if this is done, and the conductor fails to explain it, it can be said that he got opportunity to question the passengers. So the respondent was rightly directed to be reinstated in service.
4. So far as back benefits are concerned, the respondent was rightly allowed the same. He stated that since the date of dismissal he was jobless. His statement was not rebutted by the appellant.
5. As a result, the appeal being without force is dismissed. A.B. Appeal dismissed.