Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 154 of 1974

Appeal No. 156 of 1974.

Appeals Nos. 154 and 156 of 1975, decided on 11th April 1975.

‑‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 36‑D‑Workman (Bus Conductor) of Government Transport Service having been found in possession of excess cash, charge‑sheeted and after recording evidence in proper inquiry proceed ings and issue of second show‑cause notice dismissed from service --Order of Labour Court directing dismissal to be converted into a lighter punishment of stoppage of increment or promotion set aside‑Order of dismissal passed by Management upheld.

I. T. A. (W. P.) Road Transport Corporation; Lahore's case 1970 L L C 139 ref.

Wazir Ahmad Naz for Appellant.

Mazhar Ali Qureshi, Assistant Traffic Manger for Respondent.

The above cited cross‑appeals have been filed against the order of the learned Junior Labour Court, Multan, dated 4th April, 1974 whereby, Rafiq Ahmed Conductor was re‑instated in the service of the Government Transport Service, Multan, hereinafter mentioned as the Management by setting aside order of dismissal passed against him in the domestic enquiry on account of the misconduct.

Under the impugned order the dismissal of Rafiq Ahmed was directed to be converted into a lighter punishment by way of stopping his increment or promotion leaving the matter to the discretion of the Management. Rafiq Ahmed has appealed to get himself re‑instated un‑conditionally with back benefits while the Management has appealed to get the order of dismissal made in the domestic enquiry upheld. Both these cross‑appeals will be disposed of by this order.

Bus No. 298 conducted by Rafiq Ahmad appellant was checked on 20th March, 1973 by the checking party and the said appellant was found in possession of excess cash of Rs. 4.65 besides allowing three students pas sengers to travel without ticket. An enquiry was ordered against him and he was ultimately dismissed .on being found guilty, of charge. I have been taken through the enquiry proceedings of the Management brought on the file of the learned Lower Court as well as the evidence recorded by the Court. I find that the appellant Rafiq Ahmed was given due charge‑sheet after recording the evidence against hint, he was served with second show‑cause notice besides being heard personally. Nothing, could be referred on the record whereby the affected workman could be said to have been prejudiced or dealt with in a wrong manner. It was urged on his behalf that the written statement filed by the Management was not duly verified to give authenticity to the pleadings thereof. But a written statement has been duly signed by the District Manager, Government Transport Service, Multan, which sufficed for the purposes of verification. It was contended that the enquiry was not properly conducted and during the enquiry he was not afforded the proper chance of defence. This contention does not carry force and stands repudiated by the record of the enquiry proceedings. The impugned order is therefore, set aside in view of the above discussion and also in view of the judgment given in the case I. A. T. (W. P.) Road Transport Corporation Lahore (1970 L L C 139) wherein it was held that industrial Court cannot go into the question whether punishment awarded was lenient or severe, if it is within competence of the authority concerned. In the result the appeal filed on behalf of the Management is accepted and the order of dismissal passed by it upheld. The cross‑appeal filed by Rafiq Ahmad is dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.