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. LHR‑246 of 1985, decided on 9th April, 1986.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑
‑‑‑S.O. 15(3)(i)‑‑Misconduct‑‑"Neglect of duty"‑‑Negligence or inefficiency‑‑Bus Conductor‑‑Neither realising fare nor issuing tickets to five passengers though bus travelled for five miles‑‑Conductor, in circumstances, held, guilty of neglect of duty amounting to misconduct and not merely of negligence or inefficiency.
Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant.
Muhammad Ikram for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 5th April, 1986.
The decision, dated 20‑3‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that he neither recovered bus fare from five passengers, nor issued tickets to them. The respondent took up plea in answer to TT‑40 that the passengers were students who neither had student cards nor were willing to purchase tickets. The prosecution witness did not accept this suggestion in cross‑examination before the inquiry officer. None of the passengers or the driver was examined by the respondent in support of his plea that the without ticket five passengers were students. The respondent thus came forward with a false plea which he could not establish. He was in reality guilty of neglect of duty. If one or two passengers had been without tickets, it could be said that the respondent was guilty of negligence or was an inefficient worker. Five passengers were without tickets even though as admitted by the respondent the bus had travelled for five miles before the checking squad had entered it. The conductors are apt to miss some passengers in the buses that have short distance stops but P. R. T. B. buses travel on long routes. But the charge was not of neglect of duty, so the order of re‑instatement cannot be interfered with. However, the respondent was not entitled to back benefits as he was guilty of neglect of duty which amounts to misconduct. He escapes the responsibility on technical ground that the charge‑sheet was not of neglect of duty.
3. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, back benefits are disallowed to the respondent. Nemo for the parties.
A. E.
Appeal partly accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer