Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. RI‑476 of 1982, decided on 6th October, 1982.

West Pakistan

--‑‑S. 71 read with West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969, rr. . 57‑A, 57‑B & 103 ‑ Licence to Bus Conductor‑Issuance of‑Jurisdiction of Provincial and Regional Transport Authority barred with regard to routes and areas where Road Transport Board operates motor transport ‑ Bus conductor of Road Transport Board‑Services terminated on grounds that conductor licence had been cancelled by Magistrate‑Termina tion order, in circumstances, held, rightly, held wrong by Labour Court and re‑instatement awarded upheld by Labour Appellate Tribu nal-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38.

Ikram‑ul‑Haq for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 2nd October, 1982.

This‑appeal is directed against the decision dated 3‑7‑1982 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi. whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. The conductor licence of the respondent was cancelled by a Magis trate besides being fined to Rs. 50 for having recovered fare from certain passengers but not issuing tickets to them. Since after the cancellation of conductor licence the respondent became licensees, his services were termi nated by the appellant. It was pleaded before the learned lower Court that . the respondent had got fresh licence for the period from 26‑9‑1981 to 25‑9‑1982 from the Regional Authority, so irrespective of the fact that the previous licence of the respondent had been cancelled, he could not be terminated. The learned trial Judge held that such a point could not be raised before the Labour Court. The right course for the appellant was to challenge the new licence before the competent authority. The real question which arises in such cases is that for PRTB and PUTC conductors, no licence is needed. Such a licence is necessary for those conductors who have to conduct stage carriages on the routes and areas specified by the Regional or Provincial Transport Authority. By section 71 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, jurisdiction of the Provincial and Regional Authorities has been barred with regard to the routes and areas where the Road Transport Corporation operates motor transport.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Regional Transport Authority has, according to rule 103 of 1969 rules, authority to issue licence for conducting stage carriages in any areas specified by it and not about any route. He says that the word 'or' intervening between the word 'route' and the words 'any areas specified' is disjunctive and not con junctive. Here the word 'or' is not disjunctive. Route permits for, private carriages are issued by the Regional Transport Authority. Rule 57‑A ha classified routes for stage carriages into 'A', 'B' and 'C'. Rule 57‑B is also clear on the point. Thus Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction regarding routes and areas where the Corporation plies its stage carriages. The respondent therefore, was wrongly terminated on the ground that his licence had been cancelled. He was rightly re‑instated. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed 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.