Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑304 of 1982, decided on 4th July, 1983.

‑‑ Dismissal for misconduct‑Bus conductor charged for defalca tion‑Checking party detecting four passengers without tickets ‑Such passengers at time of checking in presence of accused stating that they had paid fare but no tickets were issued to them‑Contention that during enquiry none of such passengers were examined‑ Rejected‑Accused confronted with ticketless passengers at time of checking and witness deposing this fact before Enquiry Officer Accused, in circumstances, held, guilty of defalcation‑Dismissal of grievance petition by Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).

Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Appellant.

Asghar Mahmood for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 2nd July, 1983.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 12th May, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, where by the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.

2. The bus conducted by the appellant was checked and four passen gers out of thirteen who were alighting from the bus were found without tickets. The allegation is that the appellant had received fare from them. The appellant does not deny the realization of fare from the said passen gers but his stand is that he had issued tickets to all the passengers. It has been argued that neither any of the alleged without ticket passengers was examined at the enquiry, nor the appellant was not confronted with the passengers. So far as question of producing the passengers during enquiry is concerned, it is not possible because the enquiry officer has not all those powers which courts have to compel the attendance of witnesses, but writing of the statements of the passengers or their confrontation with the conductor is necessary. In the present case confrontation was made. The appellant said in reply to the. report contained in Form TT‑40 that the passengers had falsely stated that they were not issued tickets. So there is no force in the arguments of the learned counsel that confrontation was not made. Learned counsel has brought to my notice a dis-crepency in the statements of the two witnesses examined at the enquiry. Ashiq Mahmood said that since a responsible officer was in company, so no statement of any passengers was recorded, whereas Muhammad Sadiq said that A. T. M. was not with them at the time of checking. This is not in reality a discrepency. Muhammad Sadiq was T. E. and was a responsible officer for Muhammad Ashiq, the other witness. The latter, therefore, in cross. examination referred to Muhammad Sadiq, T. E. and not A. T. M. Since A. T. M. was not with the checking party, so Muhammad Sadiq rightly said that he was not with them.

3. Since the appellant was confronted with the passengers, so the P. Ws. rightly said that the passengers had informed that no tickets had. been issued to them. The appellant, therefore, embezzled the fare reco vered by him from the four ladies without ticket passengers and would have succeeded in misappropriating the money but for the checking. The defal cation was duly proved and the appellant was rightly dismissed and his grievance petition was quite justifiably dismissed.

4. As a result of what has been said above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.

A. E 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.