Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. GA‑212 of 19831Pb., decided on 10th April, 1984.

Domestic enquiry---Bus driver allegedly responsible for accident resulting in damage to Bus‑‑Charged for rash and negligent driving and after enquiry awarded punishment of recovery of amount of damage‑‑Explanation that accident was due to weak front tyre which fact was brought to notice of Yard Master (Superior Officer) before journey who desired that tyre would be changed on return from journey‑‑Yard Master not examined to falsify statement of accused‑ Punishment of recovery of damage, in circumstances, vacated by Labour Appellate Tribunal‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).

‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Grievance notice and petition ‑‑Limitation‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑Petitioner a layman (Bus Driver) filing civil suit against impugned order under wrong legal advice‑‑Held: Should not suffer for accepting wrong legal advice‑‑Period spent n civil Court excluded and delay condoned.

Malik Ghulam Rasool for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 7th April, 1984.

The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 22‑3‑1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant.

2. The appellant was driving a bus of the respondent on 9‑2‑1977. An accident took place causing damage to the bus. The appellant was charge‑sheeted for driving the bus rashly and negligently. After holding an enquiry, he was found guilty and awarded a punishment of recovering of Rs.3,400 as damages by installments at the rate of Rs.100 per mensem.

3. The plea of the appellant taken in reply to the charge‑sheet and thereafter upto the last, was that the front tyres of the bus were weak which fact was brought to the notice of Mr. Abdul Ghani, Yard Master but he said that on his return from journey, they would be got changed. During the enquiry too the appellant stated so. Neither he was cross‑examined on this point nor Mr. Abdul Chani was examined to falsify his statement. In the estimate of damages, no tyre was mentioned, nor its price was claimed. This shows that in reality the tyre was worn out. Apart from it the enquiry was not made properly. The appellant was not allowed to cross‑examine Muhammad Ismail (P.W.) as there is no note that the appellant did not want to cross‑examine him. No opportunity of production of defence evidence was given as there is no note to that effect.

4. The estimate of damages is also improperly made. The prices of the damaged articles were not given. So it cannot be said that the actual damage was worth Rs. 3,400.

5. It has been argued that the grievance notice and the grievance petition are time‑barred. The appellant had under the wrong legal advice firstly brought a civil suit that was afterwards withdrawn and after the service of grievance notice, the grievance petition was brought. He being a layman accepted the wrong legal advice, so should not be made to suffer. The period spent in civil Court, therefore, is excluded and the delay is condoned.

6. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the order of imposition of damage is vocated.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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