Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. St.732 of 1979, decided on 28th February, 1982.

---S.O.15--Bus Conductor dismissed from service on charge of misconduct--Grievance petition accepted on ground that Enquiry Officer was not produced in witness-box--Conductor re-instated in service without back benefits.

Date of hearing: 30th February, 1982.

The Punjab Road Transport Board has challenged in this appeal the decision dated 17-10-1979, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated with full back benefits.

The Bus conducted by the respondent was checked on 7-8-1978 and it was found that the respondent had recovered the fare of Rs.1.60 for luggage weighing two maunds but had not issued a ticket for that. The total fare for the luggage was Rs.3.20 paisas. The checker charged fare of Rs.1.60 more and issued ticket.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the lower court was not justified in ordering the reinstatement of the respondent on the short ground that the enquiry officer had not been examined. He says that since no allegation had been made against the enquiry officer, it was not necessary to produce him in the witness box. There is no force in this argument. Production of enquiry pro ceeding is necessary and they can be proved by the evidence of their author only. The other defect is that T.T. 40 was neither produced before the Enquiry Officer nor before the Labour Court. Its production was necessary. Moreover no statement of the respondent was recorded to the effect, if he did not want to produce any more defence. If the Enquiry Officer had appeared, the respondent could have cross-examined him on the point. So, order of reinstatement is justified. However, in view of the fact that there was some technical defects in the case and otherwise there was cogent evidence that the respondent had recovered half the fare for the luggage but had not issued ticket, the respondent was not entitled to back benefits. But for the technical defects the respondent would not have been reinstated.

So I partly accept the appeal and set aside that portion of the order of the lower court which directed the payment of the back benefits.

M. I.

Appeal partly accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.