This is an appeal against an order of the learned Chairman of the First West Pakistan Labour Court; Karachi, dated the 3rd of February 1970, whereby the learned Chairman granted permission to the respondent under section 37(2) of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance; 1968, to dismiss the appellant from service. The facts giving rise to the appeal briefly put are these.
2. The appellant was a Conductor on the Lower Deck of a Double Decker Bus on 28th November 1968. The bus was running from Latifabad to Station. A Checking Party consisting of Messrs Syed Ahmad Rizvi and Rashid Ahmad boarded the bus at the Tonga Stand and found on enquiry that about 50 passengers on the Lower Deck were without tickets, though the fare had been realised by the Conductor. The Conductor was asked to hand over the Ticket Book and Way Bill. He refused to hand-over these documents and became rude and 4iscourtuoyas to the Checking Party. The appellant was charge --sheeted for having committed dishonest act and for disorderly behaviour towards the Checking Party. On enquiry by Mr. Muhammad Ilyas, he was found guilty. The District Manager, after hearing the appellant, applied to the Labour Court for permission to dismiss him from service.
3. The defence of the appellant all through was that his bus was not checked and that he had been falsely involved because of some quarrel that had taken place with the Checking Party previous to the date when his bus was said to have been checked.
4. The learned Chairman recorded the statements of Mr. Rashid Ahmed, Mr. Muhammad Ilyas and Syed Ahmad Rizvi. On the other hand, the appellant examined himself. Mr. Muhammad Ilyas produced the enquiry papers together with his report.
5. Before I deal with the submissions made by Mr Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned Representative for the appellant, I may observe one or two things. In the first place, there is nothing in the cross- examination of Mr. Rashid Ahmad and Mr. Syed Ahmad Rizvi to suggest, even by, implication, in their statements before the learned Chairman, that they had any enmity whatsover, to falsely involve the appellant. They had in their statement before the Court clearly stated that all the passengers in the Lower Deck were without tickets and that the appellant flu had realised fare from them. They had also stated that the appellant refused to hand over ticket-book and P. L. 6 Form and M, became rude and discourteous: In- the second place, it is also clear from the cross- examination that no attempt was made to that the bus- of the appellant was not checked on 28th November 1968. At this stage it would be relevant, however, to mention that before the Enquiry Officer, Mr. Rashid Ahmad was asked in the cross-examination that if he had checked the bus of At the appellant prior to the day of incident and had come to the garage and threatened the appellant? Mr. Rashid Ahmad, however, denied any such incident. No suggestion was made to Mr. Rizvi in the cross-examination by the appellant that he had any enmity against the appellant to falsely involve him in the charge.
6. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned Representative for the appellant, very strenuously contended that P. L. 6 Form "was not brought on the record by the Enquiry Officer, in spite of the request of the appellant. The suggestion of the learned Representative is that if P. L. 6 Form was brought on the record, the Enquiry Officer would have been satisfied that the charge was baseless. P.L.6 Form is a document on which the Conductor is supposed to write the number of passengers travelling froth one place to another. P. L.6 Form had been produced before the learned Court. It mentioned that there were 46 passengers in the Lower Deck. The contention of Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi is, that having written the number of the passengers travelling, the question of not issuing tickets to then does not arise. It is true that the appellant having mentioned the number of passengers in P. L. 6 Form had to issue tickets to them. The question, however, is as to when was P. L. 6 Form filled. According to the Checking Party, the appellant had refused to hand over the documents, including P. L. 6 Form to the Checking Party arid had started to quarrel. The possibility of the appellant having filled P. L. 6 Form afterwards cannot be ruled out If the conduct of the appellant was above board, he should not have refused to produce the document before the Checking Party, which would have exonerated the appellant It is true that if the appellant had requested the Enquiry Officer to summon P. L. 6 Form, he should have summoned the same. In the circumstances of the present case, however, the non-production of P. L. 6 Form before the Enquiry Officer is immaterial. P. L: 6 Form is on the record and, as I have already observed, P. L. 6 Form must have been filled after the checking of the bus, so as to manufacture evidence in reply to the charge.
7. It was also contended that the Upper Deck should have been also checked. The failure on the part of the Checking party to check the Upper Deck would, however, not affect the case against the appellant. In this case, it was also contended that the Checking Party should have taken tickets from the Conductor of the Upper Deck and issued tickets to the 50 passengers, who did not have tickets with them. The failure air on the part of the Checking Party not to have issued tickets to the passengers, who did not have tickets would not improve the defence of the appellant, so long as the Checking Party is believed. The Enquiry Officer has believed them for good reasons and so has the learned Chairman of the Court. I have no reason to take a different view.
8. It was very strenuously contended by Mr. Wasiuliah Qureshi that the learned Chairman should not have taken into con--sideration the statement of the two witnesses, whose statement was taken down by the Checking Party on 28th. November 1968, as they were not taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer. Even the statement of these two witnesses, who had deposed that the appellant had realised fare, from them but had not issued tickets to them, is ignored, the appellant cannot be exonerated of the charge levelled against him.
9. The learned Chairman of the Court has considered all the relevant aspects of the case and then granted permission to the respondents to dismiss the appellant. I have gone through the record of this case with the assistance of Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, and I have come to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was fair, impartial and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The learned Chairman of the Court had given good reasons for granting permission to dismiss the appellant from service. I would maintain the order of the learned Chairman and dismiss the appeal.