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. FD‑198 of 1983, decided on 12th March, 1984.
-‑‑ Negligence‑Bus conductor responsible for loss of Ticket Book and E. L. T. Books‑Case registered with police but no clue forthcom ing‑Imposed penalty of amount one‑fourth of value of Tickets Labour Court accepting grievance petition and setting aside penalty order‑Accused found guilty of negligence for theft of Ticket Book but not allegation of misuse of tickets‑Accused, in circumstances, held, could be charged price of paper and printing cost and not for value of tickets‑Appellate Tribunal accordingly setting aside order of Labour Court with direction that actual amount spent on prepara tion of books be charged from accused‑Industrial Relations Ordi nance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38.
Sh. Aftab Ahmad for Appellant
Respondent in person.
Date of hearing : 3rd March, 1984.
The decision dated 28th February, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad has been challenged in this appeal. R. P. T., student ticket book and E. L. T. books while in the occupation of the respondent were lost. The respondent got a case registered with the police but no clue was found. The respondent was imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,453.55 as one‑fourth of the value of the tickets. The learned lower Court accepted the grievance petition of the respondent and set aside the order of the imposition of fine. There is no allegation against the respondent that he had misused the said books. The sale value of such documents can be charged but only the price of paper and the printing charges can be recovered if it is found that the documents were lost due to the negligence of the official concerned. So far as negligence is concerned, the same is clear from the plea taken by the respondent. The respondent did not disclose where on his bicycle he had placed the bag containing the books. He does not say that he has tied it on the carrier. It appears that the bag was hanging with the handle of the bicycle and the respondent left it unattended for some time, with the result that it was removed by some thief considering that something value able was in it. So, he was guilty of negligence.
2. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant is directed to charge from the respondent actual amount spent on the preparation of books.
A. E. Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer