Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. RI‑95 of 1979/Pb., decided on 24th March, 1982.

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

‑‑ S. Os. I & 15(5)‑Reinstatement‑No evidence available to show that Checking Party actually found conductor recovering fare from passengers without issuing tickets to them‑Conductor, held, wrongly charge‑sheeted and could not be punished merely on presumption Reinstatement of such conductor, held, rightly ordered.

Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant.

Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 27th February, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision, dated 16th January, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievence petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The allegation against the respondent was that on 15th August, 1976 he recovered fare from 18 passengers but did not issue tickets to them. Actually checking was not done and the allegation is that when the checking party gave caution for stopping the bus, the driver applied breaks a bit and then accelerated away the bus. The checking party had a chance to see when the breaks were applied that the bus was full. On the destination when the checking was done it revealed that only 31 tickets were issued from the station from which the bus had started and in the way only two tickets had been issued by the conductor totalling 33, but as the bus was full having the capacity of 51 seats, 18 passengers were regarded as without tickets. It is clear from the charge‑sheet that only on presumption the, respondent was charge‑sheeted. This is not believable that the checking party without getting into the bus counted the passengers and satisfied themselves that no seat was vacant and that the bus was full to its capacity. The, charge‑sheet shows that intentionally the bus was not stopped, because the tickets had not been issued to some passengers. If it had been so, the respondent would have issued tickets to those passengers from whom fare had been recovered, but till the time the bus was attempted to be stopped by the checking party tickets bad not been issued to them. When the res pondent had come to know tat the checking party had attempted to stop the bus, he must have realised that he may be reported against and checking may be done at the destination or at the station of issue. Since actually the checking was not done, the respondent was wrongly charge‑sheeted that he had recovered fare from 18 passengers and had not issued tickets to them. Again even if it be said that at the time the bus started from the issue station only 31 tickets had been issued, there is no evidence that the re maining passengers had boarded the bus from the station of issue and not in the way for shorter journey. The respondent could not be punished only on presumption. His grievance petition, therefore, was rightly accepted. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.

M. 1.

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.