' Khalid Mahmood, appellant, was employed on 10th November 1976 as Conductor by Punjab Urban Transport Corporation, Islamabad. His Bus was checked on 16th May, 1977 by a Checking Party under the supervision of the Traffic Manager. During the course of checking it was found that 8 passengers, who were alighting from the bus, were not issued any tickets although fare had been realised by the appellant from theme There were also 4 other passengers who were neither issued any ticks nor fare had been realised from them. The appellant had also excess cash amounting to Rs, 24.20 in his possession. Form TT-40 was issued to him. He was charge-sheeted on 26th May, 1977. His reply was found unsatisfactory. An enquiry was instituted against him. He did not participate in the enquiry on the ground of illness. He was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 7th July, 1977. After serving a grievance notice, the appellant filed a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before Punjab Labour Court No, 6, Rawalpindi, which vide impugned decision dated 30th May, 1978 dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned decision, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
2. I have heard at length the counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material available on the record.
3. It is vehemently contended by Mr. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich, the learned counsel for the appellant, that according to the charge-sheet, some alleged allegations would amount to misconduct under Standing Order 15 (3) of the W.P. Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 while the other like not realising fare from 4 passengers would amount to inefficiency or carelessness under Standing Order 15 (1) of the said Ordinance.
4. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, in the circumstances of the case, even not realising fare from 4 passengers would fall under Standing Order 15 (3) because this happened at the time when the passengers were debussing at their destination. He had realised fare from 8 passengers and was in the process of realising fare from the remaining 4 when the Checking Party boarded the bus. According to him, if this had happened earlier, perhaps there could be some substance in the contention of the appellant especially when the total number of passengers in the bus was thirty. N excuse of rush of passengers could, therefore, possibly be taken. According to him, the mens rea of the appellant is clear that here literately did not issue tickets to the said 12 passengers earlier when they boarded the bus and remained in it till they reached their destination. He only started realising fare from them while they were getting down at their destination.
' According to the learned counsel, the charge of excess cash stands proved as the explanation of the appellant is not believable.
5. Another argument advanced by Mr. Warraich on behalf of the appellant is that there was no justification for ex pane enquiry proceedings against the appellant. According to him, the appellant on 30th June 1977 sent application to the District Manager for leave on medical ground and the same was granted. It was then the duty of the District Manager to inform the Enquiry Officer about the illness of the appellant. It is not denied that the appellant earlier had received the notice for 30th June, 1977, therefore, it was also his duty to inform the Enquiry Officer about his inability to attend the proceeding on that date due to illness. There is nothing on the record to show that he sent any application or intimation in this behalf to the Enquiry Officer. Again it is an admitted fact that the Enquiry Officer sent notice to the appellant for 3rd July, 1977 to produce his defence. This notice was received by the appellant on 2nd July, 1977 but he did not appear before the Enquiry Officer on 3rd July, 1977. If he had appeared on that day, he could not only produce his defence, but could also ask the Enquiry Officer to provide him an opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witnesses examined on 30th June, 1977, in his absence. In the circumstances, I feel that the Enquiry Officer gay ample opportunity to the appellant to participate in the enquiry proceedings and to produce his defence.
6. For the foregoing reasons, I have reached the conclusion that Labour Court has rightly rejected the grievance petition of the appellant The impugned decision of the Labour Court is perfectly correct and requires no interference by this Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.