Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. LHR‑473 of 1980, heard on 21st November, 1982.
‑‑‑ Dismissal for misconduct‑Bus conductor's case‑‑Allegations : (1) ticketless passengers from whom fair allegedly recovered, and (2) ticket less passengers from whom fare also not realised‑Second allegation not amounting to misconduct‑Mind of dismissing authority, in circumstances, held, prejudiced for reason that Enquiry Officer found accused guilty of a charge riot amounting to misconduct‑Possibility of taking lenient view by dismissing authority not excluded if Enquiry Officer had found accused guilty of .only one charge‑Reinstatement without back benefits awarded by Labour Court, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).
Asghar Mahmood for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 21st November, 1982.
In this appeal the decision dated 4th of May, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1 has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated without back benefits.
2. The respondent also brought an appeal claiming back benefits but he did not appear on the date fixed for hearing, i. e. 21st of November, 1982, therefore, his appeal was dismissed in default. He has not appeared in this appeal and, therefore, it is also being decided ex parte.
3. The facts‑are that the bus conducted by t e respondent was checked and it was found that he had received fare from three lady pas sengers but had not issued tickets to them. Seven other lady passengers were ticketless from whom he had not recovered the fare. The second allegation was that he had neither recovered the fare, nor had issued the tickets to them, does not amount to misconduct. The mind of the dismis sing authority was prejudiced on account of the fact that he was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer of the allegations which did not amount to misconduct. If the Enquiry Officer had found the respondent guilty of only one offence, the possibility cannot be excluded that the dismissing authority may have taken some lenient view and awarded a punishment short of dismissal.
4. In these circumstances, the respondent was rightly reinstated without back benefits. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed ex parte.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer