Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR-393 of 1982, decided on 27th September, 1983.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) ----

-------S. O. 15 (3) (i)-"Misconduct"-Word "or" in between words "negligence" and "neglect"-Disjunctive-Word "habitual" not to be read with words "neglect of work"-Single instance of neglect of duty may be sufficient for charge of misconduct-Bus conductor's case-Non-issuance of tickets to passengers-Neither fare received nor tickets issued to 12 lady passengers seated in separate ladies accommodation and they had travelled for a pretty long distance Dismissal from service for misconduct of neglect of duty, in circumstances, upheld.

1983 P L C 304 ; 1983 P L C 278 ; N L R 1983 Labour 131 ; 1980 P L C 930 ; 1980 P L C 133 and 1980 P L C 102 distinguished.

Khalid Farooq for Appellant.

Asghar Mahmood for Respondent No. 1.

Nemo for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 3rd September, 1983..

The appeal titled above calls in question the correctness of the decision dated 30th July, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.

2. The bus conducted by the appellant was checked on 13th May, 1979 and 12 lady passengers were found without tickets from whom no fare had yet been recovered by the appellant. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that no allegation of misappro priation and fraud bavi4 been made, the dismissal was not called for. He says that at the most the act of the appellant amounted to negligence and inefficiency which do not amount to misconduct. This is true that in cases where fare has not been recovered, no question of mis appropriation or fraud arises but each case is to be viewed and decided according to its nature and circumstances. Learned counsel has cited authority pronounced by me as well as of other Courts but in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, they are distinguishable. They are 1983 P L C 304, 1983 P L C 278, N L R 1983 Labour 131, 1980 P L C 930, 1980 P L C 133 and 1980 P L C 102. In all the cases from which the authorities cited by the learned counsel arose the number of without ticket passengers was not great. In the present case 12 lady passengers were without tickets and no fare had been realised. While travelling in the buses of PUTC, we find that lady-class is separate located behind the driver and accommodation in comparison to the one meant for gents is very small. In any case the accommodation does not exceed 15. If the appellant had even once went to lady-class and requested the passengers to buy tickets, all of them would have been with tickets. This is noteworthy that the without ticket passengers had travelled for a pretty long distance and were not new entrants. The appellant was thus guilty of neglect of duty. He was duty bound to go to the lady-class in suitable intervals to issue tickets to the passengers but he. did not do so, with the result that sufficient number of lady passengers was without tickets. Standing Order 15 (3) (i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance. 1968 applies. The word or' used in this clause is disjunctive, so the word habitual' is not to be read with the words neglect of work'. In this view of the matter single instance of neglect of duty was sufficient. The appellant was, therefore, rightly dismissed and his grievance petition dismissed.

3. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss the same. The appeal has been decided ex pare against respondent No. 2 as nobody had appeared on its behalf.

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.