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. D.G. Khan‑145 of 1984, decided on 18th November, 1984.
‑‑‑Dismissal for misconduct Bus Conductor's case‑‑Ticketless passengers‑‑Fare alleged to have been realised‑‑Passengers allegedly telling Checker that they had paid fare‑‑Statements of such passengers neither recorded by Checker at time of checking nor they were examined in enquiry‑‑Statement of such passengers, held, should have been recorded and got signed at time of checking and same could have been produced in enquiry‑‑Statement of Checker being not an eye‑witness of recovery of fare, held, amounted to hearsay evidence‑‑Charge, in circumstances, held, not proved‑‑Order of Labour Court awarding re‑instatement set aside by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A a 38(3).
Appellant in Person.
Abdul Majeed Sindhu for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 12th November, 1984.
The titled appeal arises from the decision, dated 14‑3‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service.
2. Bus No. 2364 conducted by the appellant was checked on 16‑1‑1981. Eight passengers were travelling without tickets from whom the appellant is alleged to have realised the fare. The appellant took up stand in reply to TT‑40 that he had not realised the fare from the without ticket passengers. He denied the allegation in reply to charge sheet too.
3. The Enquiry Officer and the learned lower Court relied upon hearsay evidence. The checkers were not the eye‑witnesses of the recovery of fare by the appellant. The passengers are alleged to have told them that they had paid the fare but neither their statements were recorded at the time of checking, nor they were examined during the enquiry. This is true that the passengers could not be bound down to appear before the Enquiry Officer but the deposition made at the time of checking could be recorded and got signed by them and produced before the Enquiry Officer. No charge could be established on merely hearsay evidence. So the grievance petition was wrongly dismissed and the impugned order of the learned lower Court is not sustainable.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellate is directed to be re‑instated in service. He is not entitled to back benefits as he did not prove that he remained unemployed during the period of dismissal.
A.E.
Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer