Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. FD‑432 of 1986/Pb. , decided on 13th July, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Production of defence‑‑Requirement‑‑In cases where proceedings have been concluded on day on which prosecution evidence was closed necessary requirement, held, would be to inquire from worker about production of defence, if any‑‑However, where after close of case of prosecution inquiry was adjourned it would not be necessary to make inquiry as worker would be at liberty to produce evidence in defence.
‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Appellate jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Bus conductor collecting fair from passenger but issuing no tickets‑At time of checking conductor duly confronted with without ticket passenger which fact not denied by such conductor in reply to charges‑‑Examination of without ticket passengers during inquiry, held, would not be necessary‑‑Grievance petition of employee having ‑been rightly dismissed, finding of Labour Court was upheld by Labour Appellate Tribunal in appellate jurisdiction.
Nazir Ahmad Naz for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 6th July, 1986.
This is an appeal preferred against the decision, dated 15‑5‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala, whereby, the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.
2. The allegation against the appellant was that he had realised fare from the passengers but had not issued tickets and thus embezzled the fare. It has been argued without force that opportunity of defence was not given as it was not inquired from the appellant if he wanted to produce any evidence in defence. In cases where proceedings have been included on the day on which prosecution evidence is closed, it is necessary to inquire from the worker about the production of defence, if any. But where after the close of the case of the prosecution the inquiry is adjourned, it is not necessary to make such an inquiry as the worker is at liberty to produce evidence in defence,. In the present case the prosecution evidence was closed on 9‑6‑1984 and inquiry proceedings were closed on 11‑6‑1984 after recording the defence statement of the appellant. He thus had opportunity to produce defence but he did not do so.
3. Form TT‑40 shows that at the tune 4 checking the appellant was duly confronted with without ticket passengers. In reply he did not deny the factum of such a confrontation. So examination of passenger during the inquiry in these circumstances was not necessary. The grievance petition of the appellant was thus rightly disallowed.
4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.
A.A. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer