Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL SHAKOOR VS Respondent: PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, FAISALABAD
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Title: ABDUL SHAKOOR vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, FAISALABAD Case No.: Appeal No, F D-217 of 1983 Date of Judgment:1984-03-11 Reported As: 1984 PLC 1225 Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 21st March, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was accepted. 2. The allegation against the appellant was that after the bus conduc. Ted by the appellant was checked, he made interpolation in the counterfoil of the tickets by reducing the quantum of fare and in this way he embezzled a total amount of Rs, 152. According to the respondent, the forgery and embezzlement were detected during the audit. 3. It has been argued by the representative of the appellant that the last page of T. T. 2 was not produced, where the checker had given total with his own hand in red ink. He says if it had been done, it could show if the appellant after the checking changed the amount and consequently the total. According to him, the appellant may have corrected the counter-foils of the tickets before the checking. No doubt, the last page of T. T.-2 was not produced because the amounts given in pages of T. T.-2 clearly appear to have been changed by overwriting. In the tickets also the fare and places between which the passengers travelled are changed. Initially the fare was given as Rs, 7. It was afterwards changed to Rs, 3. The interpolation is clearly visible. If this interpolation had been made before the checking, the checker would have caught the appellant. After checking the appellant did the interpolation, thinking that there were now no chances of his being detected. But unfortunately he was detected during audit. If the appellant was thinking that the last page of T. T.-2 would help him, he could have got it summoned before the Enquiry Officer or the learned lower Court. The misconduct committed by the appellant was thus duly proved and he was correctly dismissed and his grievance petition rightly disallowed.