Find a Lawyer

Appeal No.LHR‑33 of 1984, decided on 16th February, 1985

‑‑‑ Embezzlement and misappropriation‑‑Bus conductor alleged to have realised fare from passengers without issuance of tickets‑‑Statement of ticket-less passengers not recorded‑‑T. T Form not revealing that accused confronted with passengers at time of checking‑‑Statement of checker before Enquiry Officer that accused had received fare merely hearsay evidence‑‑Order of Labour Court accepting grievance petition and awarding re‑instatement', in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 38(3).

Zia Ullah for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 9th February, 1985

The decision, dated 5‑12‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. The allegation against the respondent was that he had received bus fare from five passengers but had not issued tickets to them and thus misappropriated the amount.

3. Admittedly, no statement of the passengers was recorded. The TT‑40 does not reveal that the respondent hay been confronted with the passengers. The checker, no doubt, stated that the respondent had received the bus fare but he not being an eye‑witness, his evidence in the absence of the evidence of passengers is hearsay. Driver of the bus too was not examined to corroborate the evidence of the checker. The respondent, therefore, was rightly directed to be re‑instated in service. The respondent said that he remained jobless, so back benefits too were rightly allowed.

4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.

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.