Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR-455 of 1981/Pb., decided on 1st March, 1983.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---

----Ss. 25-A & 37-Grievance petition against dismissal from service for misconduct-Witness in domestic enquiry supporting charges examined before Labour Court- Statement of such witness not proving charges-Re-instatement with: back benefits awarded by Labour Court, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal.

Syed Sajjad Hussain for Appellant.

Munawar Ahmad Javed for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 26th February, 1983.

This appeal is directed against the decision dated 11-6-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5., Faisalabad, whereby the respondent was directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits.

2. The allegation on the basis of which the respondent was dismissed from service were that he was ordered to drive bus No. 9744 from Pindi to Lahore but he refused insisting that road test of the said bus be taken although he was informed that road test had been taken but he persisted in his demand, that he went to the booking office and asked the passengers not to purchase tickets saying that the bus was not in order and he would not ply it and lastly that he was in the habit of breaking down the buses.

3. So far as the third charge is concerned there is no evidence on the record. Not a single instance of breaking down any bus has been brought on the record. Needless to say that for proving habit of a thing, sufficient instances are proved, but in the present case not a single instance was cited.

4. The Yardmaster R.W-2 disproved the remaining two charges. Regarding charge No. 1 he admitted before the learned lower Court that the respondent had not refused to drive the bus but insisted on road test of the bus. He also stated that a driver has a right to ask for the road test of a bus which had gone out of order. He also said that road test of the bus had not been taken by any mechanic in his (the witness) presence. There is no report on the record to the effect that road test had actually been taken before the bus was made ready for traveling or that any such report was shown to the respondent when he asked for road test. He, therefore, was justified in demanding road test of 'the bus. About the record the Yardmaster said that he did not go to the booking office and that he could not say if the respondent had asked the passengers not to purchase tickets telling them that this bus would not go. No other witness stated anything in this respect before the learned lower Court. Before the Enquiry Officer n doubt the Yardmaster deposed against the respondent regarding the charge but since by what he stated before the learned lower Court no charge stood proved, the respondent was rightly directed to be re-instated in service.

5. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.

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.