Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑441 of 1982/Pb., decided on 7^th August, 1982.

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

S. O. 15‑Reinstatement in service challenged‑‑Bus conductor neglected issuing tickets to passengers‑Allegations of misconduct or intentional negligence not established‑Held: Only that neglect of duty was misconduct which is intentional.

Asghar Mahmood for; Appellant.

Date of hearing: 1st August, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision, dated 30th June, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits.

2. The allegation against the respondent was that four lady passengers were found without tickets, from whom fare had not been recovered. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the charge was not of misappropriation but of neglect of work, therefore, the allegation amounts to misconduct. He has further said that six bus stops had passed, yet the respondent had not issued tickets to four lady passengers. According to the learned counsel, it was a wilful act of the respondent and but for the check ing he would have pocketed the fare after receiving it from the four without ticket lady passengers. There is no evidence that the respondent had the intention to receive the fare from four lady passengers at the place of their destination and to pocket the amount. Both things are possible. The intention may be to receive the fare at the place of destination and to pocket the same, as well as the possibility cannot be excluded that due to in advertence or rush of work, the respondent could not issue tickets to four lady passengers. In answer to Form T.T. 40 the respondent had taken up the plea that due to rush he could not issue tickets. This explanation is worth consideration and since the learned trial Judge believed it, it cannot be said that he committed any irregularity. If there intervened six stops from the place the four lady passengers got into the bus and the place where the checking was made, the possibility cannot be excluded that as large number of passengers had got into the bus on those six bus stops and thus the respondent forgot that he had not issued tickets to four ladies sitting in the bus. This was not a case of misappropriation or neglect of work. Needless to say that only that neglect of duty is misconduct which is intentional.

3. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine.

M. I.

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.