The mismanaged bus conductor was found to be charging fares from four passengers, but none of the tickets requested a defense saying that while he was in the process of checking the party, the four passengers sitting in two separate seats. If not, in the case of the suspects, if there was a non-existent, the fraudulent intention was to issue a ticket to a set of two passengers simultaneously with the receipt of the fare, and then the defense would be requested in the circumstances, which is not reliable and Appeal Tribunal to exclude services rendered by Appellate Tribunal Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Section 25A & 37
Appeal No. LBR‑214 of 1981/Pb., decided on 7th February, 1983.
Industrial dispute‑
‑‑Misconduct‑Misappropriation ‑ Bus Conductor found having received fare from four passengers but no tickets issued‑Defence plea that he was in process of issuing tickets when checked by checking party‑Four passengers sitting in two separate sets and not together‑Accused, in circumstances, held, if had no intention of fraud would have issued tickets to one set of two passengers simul taneously with recovery of fare and thereafter would have recovered fare from other set of passengers‑Defence plea in circumstances, held, not reliable and afterthought‑‑Dismissal from service upheld by Appellate Tribunal setting aside order of Labour Court awarding re‑instatement‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 37.
Respondent in person.
Date of hearing : 29th January, 1983.
JUDGEMENT This appeal arises from the decision dated 28th March, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefit.
2. Bus No. 9597 conducted by the respondent was checked on 14th February, 1977. It was found that he had realised fare from four passengers but had not issued tickets to them. There were two other passengers and three students from whom the respondent had not yet recovered fare, nor till then had issued tickets. The plea taken by the respondent was that he had recovered fare from four passengers and was in the process of issuing tickets when the checking party came and snatched the R. P. T. from him, with the result that he could not issue tickets. Four passengers were in two sets, one consisted of a lady and a student from whom 80 paisas as fare had been recovered. The other set consisted of two lady passenger: from whom also 80 paisas had been recovered. Since all the four passengers were not together, the plea of the respondent that he was in the process of issuing tickets is not helpful to him. As soon as fare recovered, ticket is issued. If the respondent had no intention to defraud the appellant, he would have issued tickets to one set of two passenger simultaneously with the recovering of fare and, thereafter, would have recovered fare from the other passengers. In cross‑examination it was not suggested to Mr. Anwarul Haq Checker, that the respondent was in the process of issuing tickets to the passengers from whom he had recovered fare. The plea is, therefore, afterthought. The misappropriation was duly proved. Statement of one of the passengers was recorded at the spot which supported the prosecution case. The offence was, therefore, duly proved. The learned lower Court wrongly directed the reinstatement of the respondent.
3. As upshot of the observations made above, y I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, restore the order of dismissal and dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent.
Appeal accepted.
