Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. S. G.‑565 of 1984, decided on 20th November, 1984.
‑‑ Dismissal for misconduct‑Bus Conductor alleged to have not issued tickets though fare realised‑Statement of ticket-less passengers not recorded by checker‑Checker, held, not an eye‑witness to pay ment of fare‑Statement of Checker before Enquiry Officer regard ing factum of recovery of fare a mere hear‑say‑Allegation of recovery of fare by accused, in circumstances, held, not proved hence order of Labour Court awarding reinstatement upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) Ss. 25‑A and 38(3).
Muhammad Aslam Kalyar for Appellant.
Date of hearing : 17th November, 1984.
The titled appeal is directed against, the decision dated 26th August, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, directing the reinstatement of the respondent in service.
2. The bus conducted by the respondent was checked and 13 passengers were found to be traveling without tickets, from whom fare is alleged to have been realised by the respondent. Relying upon the state ment of the checker made during enquiry the employer dismissed the respondent. So far as the factum of recovery of fare is concerned, the statement of the checker was hearsay. The passengers concerned, usually tell the checker on enquiry about the recovery of fare. So the evidence of checker is hearsay. In order to prove the charge it is essential that at least the statements of the passengers concerned should be recorded at the time of checking and the statements made by the passengers in the presence of the conductor may be produced before the Enquiry Officer if the passengers for their convenience cannot be produced in the enquiry in person. If this is done, the conductor concerned has an opportunity to produce the passenger in defence and if he fails, then the statements recorded at the spot can be used against him. It is argued that the passengers do not get -recorded. This is not believable. If they refuse, fare can be recovered for them. For fear of double payment, they would be statements. They actually make statements before and the latter is required only to record the same and receive So the appellant failed to prove the case,
As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.
A.E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer