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.
Appeals Nos. LHR‑272 and 255 of 1984, decided on 23rd June, 1985.
(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑
‑‑S. O. 15 (3)‑Industrial Relations .Ordinance . (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Misconduct‑Bus Conductor‑Allegation of misappropriation‑Tickets not issued fare not realised with alleged intention to recover fare at destination‑Such allegation, held, does not amount to misconduct‑Labour Court on plea that alleged act. amounted to neglect of duty converting penalty of dismissal from service to that of stoppage of increment for one year‑No evidence that accused intentionally did not realise fare‑Labour Court in circumstances, held, had no justification to convert punishment ‑Order of stoppage of increment passed by Labour Court set aside by Appellate Tribunal.
(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑
‑‑S. 25‑A‑Reinstatement‑Back benefits‑Petitioner must give date from which he remained unemployed‑Statement that "I am unemployed these days" does not necessarily mean that petitioner remained unemployed from date of dismissal‑Petitioner on basis of such statement, held, not entitled to back benefits.
Shafiq‑ul‑Islam for Appellant.
Khalid Farooq for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 15tb June, 1985.
The decision dated 4th April, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged‑ in the appeals captioned above whereby the order of dismissal was converted into stoppage of increment for one year. Since both the appeals arises from the same decision they are being disposed of together through this single judgment in which the P. U. T. C. will be described as the appellant and Tahir Rashid as the respondent.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that no passengers were found ticketless from whom no fare had been realised. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that failure on the part of the conductor to issue tickets and to realise fare also amounts to mis conduct‑because the intention is to realise the fare from the passenger on the completion of journey and to misappropriate the same. He says that if such an act is not taken notice, there will be a licence to the conductor to recover fare and to misappropriate‑ the same. The argument is not tenable. In cases where no fare has been recovered it cannot be said that misappropriation has taken place. An intention to recover fare on the completion of journey and to misappropriate the same in future does not amount to misconduct and is not covered by any sub‑clause of clause 3 of Standing Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Usually due to rush of work fare is not realised and tickets are not issued to the passengers so it does not amount to misconduct. If there is evidence that certain passengers were expressly allowed to travel without tickets with the understanding that fare will be settled at destination. It would amount to neglect of duty. It is thus difficult to hold that failure to realise the fare amounts to misconduct. There is no force in the contention that failure on the part of the respondent to issue tickets and recover the fare upto two stops amounted to misconduct. There is no evidence that intentionally he did not realise the fare. There is no justification for the learned lower Court to convert the punishment of dismissal into stoppage of increments. At the same time the respondent is not entitled to back benefits as he did not state that he had remained jobless through out. He stated "I am unemployed in these days". This statement shows that during the days when the statement of the respondent was recorded he was unemployed. This does not necessarily mean that from the date of dismissal he remained unemployed. He should have given the date from which he was unemployed and the date when he got employment. He should have also given the wages earned by him. In the absence of above facts it is not possible to calculate the back benefits.
3. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed and accepted the appeal of the respondent, the order of the stoppage of increments for one year is set aside without back benefits. However, the respondent is entitled to the increment if he was not paid on account of the impugned decision of, the learned lower Court.
A.E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer