Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑53 of 1985, heard on 11th February, 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Grievance notice, service of‑ Proof for‑‑Grievance notice and photo copy of postal receipt filed in Labour Court, held, would be sufficient to prove service of grievance notice‑‑Dismissal o grievance petition by Labour Court mainly on grounds that grievance notice was not served, in circumstances, not approved by Appellate Tribunal.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Industrial dispute‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑ Domestic enquiry‑‑Evidence‑‑Only one witness's word against word negating version of employee‑‑Version of employee overlooked without any corroboratory evidence against him‑‑Management relying entirely upon evidence of sole witness while passing dismissal order‑‑Such witness not produced before Labour Court‑‑Appellate Tribunal finding that petitioner‑appellant did not deserve dismissal from service‑‑Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition set aside awarding re‑instatement of employee without back benefits.

Mazhar Ali Chohan for appellant.

Azmatullah Khan for Respondents.

This is an appeal against the order of Sind Labour Court No. III at Karachi, who by his order, dated 7‑1‑1985, dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant.

2. The facts are that Abdul Majeed was a bus Conductor. On 15‑4‑1984, the bus No. 764 proceeded from Banaras Colony to Habib Bank. A checking squad, consisting of Messrs Raes Hussain, Allah Bukhsh, Masroor Khan and Mahmood Khan checked the bus at the bus stop of Habib Bank. They found that seven passengers out of 17 were not issued tickets though fare amount of paisa 0.60 was recovered from each of them. A report in Form T.T. 40 prepared. The appellant was served with the charge‑sheet, dated 2‑5‑1984. He submitted an explanation that the passengers were students who picked up a quarrel with him because he charged full fare instead of concessional fare at half rate as they did not have the requisite cards with them. The explanation given by the Conductor was found not satisfactory. A notice of enquiry was served on Abdul Majeed. Mr. Abdul Haque Qureshi, the Station Superintendent conducted the enquiry. He submitted his report on 24‑7‑1984, finding the appellant guilty of misconduct for misappropriating the amount of Rs.4.20 charged from 7 passengers. The District Manager, thereupon issued a second show‑cause notice offering him a personal hearing on 2‑8‑1984. The conductor did not appear and sent a medical certificate. The District Manager passed order on 2‑8‑1984, whereby, he dismissed the appellant from service without affording him a chance of personal hearing. On 11‑8‑1984, the Conductor appellant sent a grievance notice to the respondent Corporation to which no reply was sent, hence, the appellant filed grievance petition. The grievance notice was filed and photostat copy of the postal receipt filed in the Labour Court was sufficient to prove that the grievance notice has been served on the respondent Corporation.

3. I have heard Mr. Chohan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Azmatullah Khan, learned representative for the respondent -Corporation. I have also perused the impugned order. The Labour Court had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant mainly on the ground that a grievance notice was not given. It is proved that B the grievance notice was given and the photostat copy of the notice is on the record. I, therefore, disagree with the learned Labour Court in this respect.

4. Secondly, it has been observed by the learned Labour Court that the explanation given by the appellant that 7 students boarded the bus was an afterthought by the appellant. I find that in the domestic enquiry, only Raes Hussain is examined and in cross examination, the appellant has asked a question that students boarded the bus. No only this, but in his explanation, he has made it clear that the students boarded the bus and had a quarrel with him that they be charged at the concessional rate. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is an afterthought of the appellant.

5. But, the main point in this appeal is that the domestic enquiry was conducted and where only one witness, Raes Hussain was examined. There is word against the word and the version of the appellant is overlooked. His version was that the students quarrelled with him and they demanded the concessional rate which he did not give them. This domestic enquiry was slip shod, and the person who gave evidence against the Conductor has some grouse against him because he says that those passengers were Pathans while the Conductor says that they were students. The question is that the Pathans could be students also and there is no corroboratory evidence in the domestic enquiry against the appellant. The Corporation had relied entirely on Raes Hussain and gave a decision of dismissal of the appellant.

6. I have gone through the enquiry proceedings which consist of only one page and have also gone through the evidence in the Labour Court which consists of appellant and one witness for the respondent Corporation, namely Issani. In the Labour Court, the witness Raes Hussain was necessary and to be cross‑examined by Abdul Majeed. Why this important witness was not examined in the Labour Court. I find that this is not a case in which the appellant deserves dismissal of his services. I disagree with the impugned order of the Labour Court and hereby set it aside. The appellant be re‑instated in service with immediate effect. However, I do not award back benefits to him.

A.E. Appeal partly accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.