Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑395 of 1980/Pb., decided on 28th November, 1982.

West Pakistan

‑‑S. Os. 15 (1) (ii) (d) & 15 (3) (b) ‑Bus Conductor dismissed on charge of non‑issuance of tickets‑No fare realised from ticket less passengers ‑ Such allegation not amounting to misconduct but amounting to negligence and inefficiency not warranting punishment of dismissal ‑ Re‑instatement without back benefits awarded by Labour Court, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑Industrial Relations Ordnance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38.

Asghar Mahmood for Appellant.

Qazim Raza Shamshi for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 20th November, 1982.

In this appeal the decision dated 8‑4‑1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated without back benefits.

2. The respondent has brought cross objections to claim back benefits. The appeal and the cross :objections are being decided together through this single judgment.

3. The allegation against the respondent was that his bus was checked on 4‑3‑1978 and it was found that nine passengers were ticketless from whom the respondent had not realised the fare. It was also alleged against him that when his bus was checked he showed disorderly behaviour. The actual words written in the charge‑sheet are "bad tameezi ka muzahira kia"

4. Since the respondent had not recovered fare it cannot be said that he had committed fraud or misappropriation. He may be negligent and inefficient but no misappropriation is alleged to have been committed. Negligence and inefficiency are not misconduct, therefore, the respondent was wrongly dismissed under this charge.

5. The learned lower Court has observed that the second charge which was of disorderly behaviour was added. afterwards. The charge sheet was issued afterwards, therefore, the words "bad akhlaqi ka muzahira kia" are written in proper sequence but T. T‑40 shows that these words were added afterwards In T.T.‑40 the words "bad akhlaqi sey pesh ai" are written after the . words "tehreeri jawab den". The writing of T. T.40 came to an end with the words "tehreeri jawab den", therefore, it appears that the words "bad akhlaqi sey pesh ai" were added afterwards. Apart from it; the actual words which according to the checking party amounted to disorderly were not used, therefore, it cannot be said whether the words uttered by the respondent actually amounted to misconduct. The respondent was therefore rightly directed to be reinstated.

6. Since admittedly the respondent had not issued tickets nor had recovered the fare from not less than nine passengers, he was guilty oil negligence and thus is not justified in claiming the back benefits. The possibility cannot be excluded that if the checking had not been done, the nine passengers may have alighted from the bus without paying, the fare.

7. As a result of the observations made above, I find no force in both the appeals and dismiss them.

Appeals 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.