Domestic Inquiry Evidence Bus conductor accused of not receiving ticket from which fare was allegedly received from fare No details of passenger presented in the inquiry who did not have their signature disclosure checker Were not witnesses to the alleged payment of rent. The accused labor court rejected the checker's statement, on the occasion, justifying the fact of the checker's statement and dismissing the order of the labor court under the Appellate Tribunal Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969). Allowed to be denied, section 25A & 38
1983 P L C 364
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab
]
Before Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal PUNJAB ROAD
TRANSPORT BOARD
Versus
NAJAMUL HASSAN Appeal No. FD‑548 of 1982/Pb, decided on 22nd December, 1982.
Industrial dispute‑‑ ‑‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑Evidence‑Bus conductor charged for non -issuance of tickets having received fare‑Passengers from whom fare allegedly received not examined in enquiry‑Statements of passengers produced in enquiry not bearing their signatures‑Findings based upon statement of checker who was not eye‑witness to alleged payment of fare‑Statement of checker refuted by accused‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, justified in doubting genuineness of such state ment of checker and order of Labour Court setting aside dismissal order upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38.
Sh. Aftab Ahmad for Appellant.
Date of hearing : 5th December, 1982.
JUDGMENT This appeal arises from the decision dated 30th August, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated without back benefits.
2. The bus conducted by the respondent was checked on 19th June, 1981. Four passengers were found without tickets from whom the respon dent is alleged to have recovered the fare. The respondent did not admit the allegations. Only the checker appeared as witness in the inquiry but no passengers who are alleged to have informed the checker that they had paid the fare were examined, Since fare was not paid in the presence, of checker what they stated in this respect is hearsay. Statements of passenger were produced but they do not bear their signatures. The respondent stated that no statement of any passenger was recorded in his presence, The learn ed Presiding Officer was, therefore, justified in doubting the genuinely of the said statement.
3. The learned Labour Court in above discussed circumstances was justified in directing the re‑instatement of the respondent. There is no force in the appeal which is dismissed in limine.
Appeal dismissed.
