Find a Lawyer

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑---

--‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 37 read with Provisional Constitution Order (P. O. 1 of 1981), Art. 9‑Termination of service ‑Bus conductor convicted for receiving fare without issuing tickets and sentenced to fine and his conductor's licence also cancelled‑Services terminated due to being disqualified to work as conductor but he had obtained a fresh licence from Licensing Authority at time of termination of service‑Labour Court holding that termination of service amounted to dismissal for misconduct which could not be made without recourse to proper inquiry and awarded re‑instatement ‑Labour Appellate Tribunal upholding order of Labour Court -Orders of Labour Appellate Tribunal and Labour Court challenged in writ petition before High Court on grounds that (1) the petitioner (respondent) could not be retained in service because his original licence had been cancelled rind (2) rule 103 of West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969 debars a person from acting as a . conductor if he does not hold a proper conductor's licence and (3) fresh licence was secured without infor ming the Licensing Authority about cancellation of original licence and thus fresh licence having been obtained fraudulently was illegal and void‑Held : (1) there was nothing to show that the statute debars a conductor whose licence has been cancelled, from applying for a fresh licence or that he has to wait for some time before applying, therefore, and no action was taken by petitioner (Board) for cancellation of fresh licence, (2) petitioner (respondent) was in possession of fresh licence at time of passing termination order accordingly Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal validly held that termination order amounted to dismissal for misconduct, and (3) rule 103 of West Pakistan Motor Vehicles. Rules, 1969 was not applicable to Punjab Road Transport Board‑Interference with Order of Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal and Order of Licensing Authority in issuance of fresh licence, in circumstances, not inter fered with by High Court in writ jurisdiction‑Conductor's Licence Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969, r. 103.

M. G. Saadullah Mumtaz for Petitioner.

Through this Constitutional Petition the Punjab Road Transport Board, petitioner, seeks to challenge the orders of‑

1. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Punjab Labour Court No. 6, whereby the termination of service of Abdul Ghaffar Niazi, respondent No. 4, for being disqualified to work as Conduc tor in view of the Conductor's Licence was set aside and of (2) The Dep. Supdt. of Police (Traffic), Licensing Authority, Rawal pindi, respondent No. 3, for issuing a fresh Conductor's Licence to the said respondent No. 4.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Board submits

(i) That respondent No. 4 was convicted for receiving fare without issuing tickets. Accordingly, he was sentenced to a petty fine and his Conductor's Licence was cancelled, which order was upheld right upto the High Court.

(ii) That respondent No. 4, without informing the D. S. P. (Traffic), Licensing Authority, Rawalpindi, about cancellation of his earlier Conductor's Licence, managed to secure another one which, having been fraudulently obtained, was illegal and void.

(iii) That rule 103 of the Motors Vehicle Rules, 1969, debars a person from acting as a conductor; if he does not hold a proper Conduc tor's Licence.

(iv) That orders and others instructional letters (Annexures "O", 'P" and Q" attached with .the petition) show that respondent No. 4 could not be retained in service, as. his original Conductor's Licence has been cancelled.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Board has not been able to show that the statute debars a conductor, whose Conductor's Licence has been cancelled, from applying afresh for the same or that he has to wait for a stated period before applying again for a fresh licence. In the instant case, after the conductor's licence was cancelled, respondent No. 4 secured a fresh Conductors Licence from the D. S. P. (Traffic), Licensing Autho rity, Rawalpindi. When the service of respondent No. 4 was terminated, he was holding a fresh Conductor's Licence. Accordingly, both the Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, validly held that the termination of respondent No. 4 amounted to dismissal for misconduct, which could not be permitted without recourse to a proper inquiry. Accordingly, they reinstated respondent No. 4 in service. The orders and instructional letters (Annexures "O", "P" and ,Q" filed by the petitioner) only refer to the need and necessity of a conductor to hold a valid Conductor's Licence and steps to be taken by the Board to ensure compliance of this procedure. The orders of both the Labour Courts are legal and proper and no interference is called for. The order of the D. S. P. (Traffic), Licensing Authority, Rawalpindi, cannot be interfered with as the Board itself has not taken any action for having respondent No. 4's fresh licence cancelled. Rule 103 of the Motor Vehicles Rules is not applicable as Punjab Road Transport Board is exempted from having its routes and areas defined.

4. For the foregoing reasons, there being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed in limine.

A. E. Petition 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.