' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 22nd February, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,
5. Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits.
2. The facts are that when the bus conducted by the respondent was checked, it was found that out of total passengers of 54, twenty-two were without tickets although they had paid fare to the respondent. Out of the said 22 without tickets passengers, 17 were found actually getting down from the bus after completing their journey. The respondent was issued Form TT.40 at the spot. The statements of the passengers were recorded and got signed by the respondent.
3. The learned trial Judge directed the re-instatement of the respondent for the reasons that copy of Form TT-40 was not delivered on the spot, that the enquiry was time-barred not having been completed within one month, and that the copies of the passenger witnesses were not delivered to the respondent. So far as this point is concerned that the copies of the passenger statements should have been delivered to the respondent, the representative for the respondent relies upon 1975 PLC 494, which, according to him, is an award but actually this is not so. No point was involved in this authority that the copies of the statements of the passengers should be delivered to the employee concerned. This states only this much that alongwith the charge-sheet, list of evidence should be supplied on which the charges are based. The requirement, therefore, according to this authority, is that the list of witnesses be given and not the copies of the statements of the witnesses because the evidence of the witnesses is recorded during the enquiry after the reply to the charge-sheet is made and it is considered as unsatisfactory. However, if the employee concerned makes an application for the supply of the copies of the statements of the passenger witnesses, of course, the same may be supplied to him, but in the present case it has not been said or pointed out that the respondent had made any application to the enquiry officer for the supply of the above-mentioned copies. Moreover, the original statements were on the record of the enquiry and the same were accessible, to the respondent during the enquiry and, therefore, he could look into them. Non-supply of the copies of the statements of the passenger witnesses, therefore, was not sufficient to vitiate the enquiry proceedings. This is not the requirement of law that the enquiry 'should be completed within thirty days. It shall be appreciated if this is done, but in cases where the enquiry has not been completed within thirty days, the enquiry does not stand vitiated. The representative has not been able to cite any authority in support of the ground taken by the learned lower Court that the enquiry was not completed within thirty days. The period of limitation is fixed for giving charge-sheet within thirty days and that the enquiry should be completed within some specified period. Form TT-40 bears the reply and the signature of the respondent, therefore, it cannot be said that its copy was not delivered on the spot.
The statement of the respondent to this effect is not correct. Uncertified copy of an award no doubt is on the file of the lower Court and exhibited as Exh. P. 8 but some part of it is not decipherable and, therefore, it does not appear if it was decided in it that the delivery of the copies of the statements of the passenger witnesses alongwith the charge-sheet was necessary. As the copy of the award is not clearly decipherable, it does not appear whether it relates to the P. R. T. B. Employees. The representative has made reference to copy of application Exh. P. 9, given by some other person and its reply Exh. P. 10 and has argued that since the copies were supplied in that case, it means that the award of 1975 was being implemented. In Exh. P. 9 it is not mentioned that delivery of the copies of the statements of the witnesses was necessary according to any award. In reply to the relevant paragraph in Exh. P. 10 it is written that the copies had been supplied. If in a particular case copies had been supplied, it does not mean that it becomes a rule or that there was an award and that it was implemented.
4. The other argument of the representative is that no passenger was examined at the enquiry. This was not necessary. Since the statements of the passengers were recorded and on them signatures of the respondent had been obtained, the respondent had the knowledge of that fact and the addresses of those witnesses were available, therefore, if he wanted to examine any of them in the enquiry, he could summon them but for the prosecution it was not necessary. It would create great inconvenience to the persons who happen to travel by buses if on one hand they are not issued tickets by the conductors and as a premium over it they are put to trouble by being examined in the enquiry. The representative has cited on this point 1980 PLC 50 and 1980 PLC 74. In the first mentioned ruling it has been observed that the findings based upon the statements of the persons not examined in the enquiry and subjected to cross-examination, are illegal. In the present case the dismissal of the respondent was not based upon the statements of the passenger witnesses but on the statements of the checkers. The statements of the passenger witnesses were recorded to show that the information given to the checkers that the fare had been recovered from the passengers was correct. Moreover, the statements were recorded to enable the respondent to examine any of those passengers if he likes. So the authority cited by the representative is not helpful. In the second mentioned authority it has not been observed that the passenger witneses should be examined at the enquiry. What has been observed is that the statement should be recorded on oath during the enquiry.
5. It has also been argued that the Enquiry Officer was not examined and in this respect reliance has been placed upon 1974 PLC Note No, 90 at p.
50. Non-examination of the enquiry officer before the lower Court was not the only ground on which the order of re-instatement was upheld in the authority cited by the representative of the respondent, but there were other cogent grounds also in the presence of which the order of re- instatement was not exceptional. However, this is correct that in the authority cited it has been observed that the Enquiry Officer should have been examined since the copy of the evidence had not been supplied to the workman. What actually has been observed reads as under :- "As they had not produced the Enquiry Officer and not supplied the copy of the evidence against them it was essential to have examined the Enquiry Officers to enable the appellant to establish that there was no evidence to support the charge of incitement."
' The workers were not re-instated but the case was remanded for the examination of the Enquiry Officer and for the supply of the copies of the statements. Now a days it is not possible and convenient to remand the cases when the work is ever-increasing in every Court. With great respect to his Lordship who observed that it was essential to enable the appellant to establish that there was no evidence to support the charge of incitement, I do not find myself in agreement with him, because in cases where copy of evidence has not been supplied, by the examination of the Enquiry Officer, it cannot be shown that there was no evidence in support of a particular charge, because when the enquiry file itself is present before the Court, its perusal can show that there is any evidence or not and even if an Enquiry Officer is examined, he would also say from the same record and not from his memory. In the present case complete full enquiry file is on the record, therefore, failure on the part of the appellant to produce the Enquiry Officer before the lower Court is not fatal to the case. In cases where personal allegations have been made against the enquiry officer, or it is alleged that he had not been given full opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witnesses, the production of the enquiry officer is necessary to answer to cross questions on the points raised. It has not been argued D in the present case that there were any allegations against the enquiry officer. So in the present case, the non-examination of the enquiry office is not material.
6. As a result of the observations made, above, I come to the conclusion that the learned trial Judge was not justified in ordering the re-instatement of the respondent. The respondent had recovered fare from not less than 12 passengers and had not issued tickets to them. Obviously he had misappropriated the fare to his own use. The misconduct, therefore, had been established against him. I, therefore, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, restore the order of dismissal and dismiss the petition of the respondent filed under section 25-A, of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.