Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑575 of 1982, decided on 29th November, 1982.

Industrial dispute‑--

--‑‑Domestic enquiry‑Evidence‑Bus conductor charged for non- issuance of tickets having received fate‑Passengers from whom such fare alleged to have been received not appearing before Enquiry Officer‑Statement of such passengers before Checking Party neither recorded nor signed by accused‑ Checker not being eye‑witness to recovery of fare‑Statement of Checker, held, had no evindentiary value‑Dismissal order on basis of findings of enquiry based upon such evidence, held, rightly set aside by Labour Court‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38.

Asghar Mahood for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 23rd November, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 9‑9‑82 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the respon dent was directed to be re‑instated without back benefits. The bus conducted by the respondent conductor was checked on 20‑1‑1978. It was found that from four passengers out of whom two were students he had realised the fare but had not issued tickets to them. There were two other lady passen gers travelling from railway station to Regal from whom the respondent is alleged to have recovered fare but had not issued tickets. The appellant did not admit the charge and contended that the students had no identity cards and did not want to pay full fare and that when discussion was going on the checkers entered the bus and recovered the fare from the passengers. He also pleaded that he had not still then recovered fare. The Inquiry Officer remarked that there were adverse entries in the ‑record against the respondent and one case of dishonesty was pending against him. This was an extraneous matter which was not included in the charge‑sheet not any evidence was produced about it. The respondent was therefore prejudices. The statement of the passengers who told the checking party that fare had been recovered from them by the respondent, were not recorded and got signed from the respondent. If the passengers were not to be examined in the inquiry their statements should have been recorded and produce at the inquiry The checker not being the eye‑witnesses of the recovery of fare, their evidence in this respect had no evidentiary value. The respondent was therefore wrongly dismissed and his grievance petition was rightly accepted.

As a result of the observation made above I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it in limine.

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.