DECISION This is an appeal against an award dated 30tl-April 1970, hereby the learned Labour Court allowed the application under section 37(2) of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance), and granted permission to dismiss the appellant from service. The facts giving rise to the appeal briefly put are these.
2. The appellant is a Conductor of Government Transport Service, Sukkur. His bus was coming from Kashmore to Sukkur. On way towards Sukkur the bus of the appellant was checked at, Pathan Goth.
The Checking Party, which consisted of Mr. Abdul Quddus and Mr. Jamil Ahmad, the former Traffic Assistant arid the latter being the Assistant Traffic Manager. They found that six passengers were without tickets; out of whom the appellant had realized fare from two 'of the passengers. The appellant was charge-sheeted and the enquiry was held by Mr. Muhammad Murad Shaikh, Station Superintendent. He found the appellant guilty of misconduct. The appellant being an office bearer of the Union, the Department applied for permission of the Court to dismiss him. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the Department, Mr. Jamil Ahmad, who had checked the' bus-of the Appellant and Mr. Muhammad Murad Shaikh, the Enquiry Officer, were produced. The, appellant examined himself in defence. The Court came to the conclusion that a prima facie case of misconduct had been made out against the appellant and he granted the permission.
3. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned Representative for the appellant, contended that; admittedly, T.T.40 Form was not filled at the spot. It was submitted that this has prejudiced the appellant. There is not much force in this contention. It is true that the rules require that T.T.40 Form should be filled at the spot and the reply of the person accused be recorded on the same. The absence of T.T.40 Form does not, in any way, prejudice the case of the appellant. At best the presumption would be that what the appellant stated in reply to the charge-sheet would have been his statement on T.T.40 Form also.
4. The main point is as to whether the appellant had realized fare from two of the passengers with a dishonest intention to pocket the fare himself. His own statements in reply to the charge-sheet, before the Enquiry Officer and lastly before the learned Court, would prove that the appellant bad realized fare from two persons with the intention to pocket the same. In reply to the charge-sheet and before the Enquiry Officer the case of the appellant was that all the six passengers, who were without tickets, refused to pay fare from Sanghi. They were willing to pay fare from the place where they had boarded. The appellant stated that he stopped the bus. Thereafter, the sin persons agreed to pay fare from Sanghi. After he had started the bus, two of the passengers paid fare from Sanghi and when he was about to issue tickets to them, the Checking Party came. I may mention here that there is no explanation on behalf of the appellant as to why he had realized fare from two of the passengers at a time.' The-norm-al procedure is to realize fare from one person and issue ticket to him and then proceed with others. It is not the case of the appellant in the statement that he made before the Enquiry Officer that these two persons, who paid the fare to him,, belonged to one party: Before the learned Labour Court, the appellant wanted to improve his case further. He stated that two of the passengers paid him fare from Agricultural Farm and not from Sanghi. This led to altercation between the two passengers and in the meantime the Checking Party came. On the face of it, there is a material contradiction in the statements, which he made before the Enquiry Officer and the one. He made before the Labour Court. In that view of the mater, I see no reason to take a different view than the learned Labour Court has taken that. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.