Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS Respondent: MUSHTAQ AHMAD
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Title: PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD Case No.: Appeal No. LHR-575 of 1982 Date of Judgment:1982-11-28 Reported As: 1983 PLC 261 Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT This appeal arises from the decision dated 9-9-82 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the respon--dent was directed to be re-instated without back benefits. The bus conducted by the respondent conductor was checked on 20-1-1978. It was found that from four passengers out of whom two were students he had realised the fare but had not issued tickets to them. There were two other lady passen--gers travelling from railway station to Regal from whom the respondent is alleged to have recovered fare but had not issued tickets. The appellant did not admit the charge and contended that the students had no identity cards and did not want to pay full fare and that when discussion was going on the checkers entered the bus and recovered the fare from the passengers. He also pleaded that he had not still then recovered fare. The Inquiry Officer remarked that there were adverse entries in the -record against the respondent and one case of dishonesty was pending against him. This was an extraneous matter which was not included in the charge-sheet not any evidence was produced about it. The respondent was therefore prejudices. The statement of the passengers who told the checking party that fare had been recovered from them by the respondent, were not recorded and got signed from the respondent. If the passengers were not to be examined in the inquiry their statements should have been recorded and produce at the inquiry The checker not being the eye-witnesses of the recovery of fare, their evidence in this respect had no evidentiary value. The respondent was therefore wrongly dismissed and his grievance petition was rightly accepted. As a result of the observation made above I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it in limine.