Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. RI‑640 of 1978, decided on 7th July, 1980.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑----

‑‑ S. O. 15 (1) & (3)‑Misconduct‑Inefficiency or carelessness‑Bus Conductor not issuing tickets to passengers‑ Number of total passengers in Bus only thirty‑Conductor found realising fare from passengers when alighting at their destination without issuance of tickets--Mens rea of Bus Conductor clear that he deliberately did not issue tickets when passengers were in bus and circumstances did not prevent him to issue tickets‑Conductor, held, rightly charged for misconduct under S.O.15 (3)‑Refraining to attend inquiry despite receipt of notice‑Enquiry Officers, in circumstances, held, further, gave ample opportunity of participation before proceeding ex parte --Grievance petition against dismissal order in circumstances, held further also, rightly rejected by Labour Court‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A. .

Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Appellant.

Shafiq‑ul‑Islam for Respondent.

Khalid Mahmood, appellant, was employed on 10th November 1976 as Conductor by Punjab Urban Transport Corporation, Islamabad. His Bus was checked on 16th May, 1977 by a Checking Party under the supervision of the Traffic Manager. During the course of checking it was found that 8 passengers, who were alighting from the bus, were not issu ed any tickets although fare had been realised by the appellant from them There were also 4 other passengers who were neither issued any tickes nor fare had been realised from them. The appellant had also excess cash amounting to Rs. 24.20 in his possession. Form TT‑40 was issued to him. He was charge‑sheeted on 26th May, 1977. His reply was found unsatis factory. An enquiry was instituted against him. He did not participate in the enquiry on the ground of illness. He was found guilty by the En quiry Officer. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 7th July,. 1977. After serving a grievance notice, the appellant filed a petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, which vide impugned decision dated 30th May, 1978 dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned decision, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

2. I have heard at length the counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material available on the record.

3. It is vehemently,‑contended by Mr. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich, the learned counsel for the appellant, that according to the charge‑sheet, some alleged allegations would amount to misconduct under Standing Order 15 (3) of the W.P. Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 while the other like not realising fare from 4 pas sengers would amount to inefficiency or carelessness under Standing Order 15 (1) of the said Ordinance.

4. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the res pondent-Corporation, in the circumstances of the case, even not realising fare from 4 passengers would fall under Standing Order 15 (3) because this happened at the time when the passengers were debussing at their destination. He bad realised fare from 8 passengers and was in the pro cess of realising fare from the remaining 4 when the Checking Party boarded the bus. According to him, if this had happened earlier, per haps there could be some substance in the contention of the appellant especially when the total number of passengers in the bus was thirty. N excuse of rush of passengers could, therefore, possibly be taken. According to him, the mens rea of the appellant is clear that he deliberately did not issue tickets to the said 12 passengers earlier when they boarded the bus and remained in it till they reached their destination. He only started realising fare from them while they were getting down at their destination. According to the learned counsel, the charge of excess cash stands prov ed as the explanation of the appellant is not believable.

5. Another argument advanced by Mr. Warraich on behalf of the appellant is that there was no justification for ex parte enquiry proceed ings against the appellant. According to him, the appellant on 30th June 1977 sent application to the District Manager for leave on medical ground and the same was granted. It was then the duty of the District Manager to inform the Enquiry Officer about the illness of the appellant. It is not denied that the appellant earlier had received the notice for 30th June, 1977, therefore, it was also his duty to inform the Enquiry Officer about his inability to attend the proceeding on that date due to illness: There is nothing on the record to show that he sent any application or intimation in this behalf to the Enquiry Officer. Again it is an admitted fact that the Enquiry Officer sent notice to the appellant for 3rd July, 1977 to pro duce his defence. This notice was received by the appellant on 2nd July, 1977 but be did not appear before the Enquiry Officer on 3rd July, 1977. If he had appeared on that day, he could not only produce his defence, but could also ask the Enquiry Officer to provide him an opportunity to cross‑examine the prosecution witnesses examined on 30th June, 1977, in his absence. In the circumstances I feel that the Enquiry Officer gave ample opportunity to the appellant to participate in the enquiry proceed ings and to produce his defence.

6. For the foregoing reasons, I have reached the conclusion that Labour Court has rightly rejected the grievance petition of the appellant. The impugned decision of the Labour Court is perfectly correct and re quires no interference by this Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

Appeal 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.