' The titled appeal is directed against the decision, dated 5th March, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 7, Gujranwala, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service.
2. The appellant was a conductor holding a conductor's licence. A Magistrate while convicting the appellant of isappropriation of bus fare recovered from a passenger, cancelled his conductors' licence. The respondent thinking that the appellant had become disqualified from conducting buses on account of the cancellation of his licence, terminated his services. The appellant challenged the order before the learned lower Court. The relevant rule is 103 of 1969 Rules. The said rule is being misunderstood. The Regional Transport Authority has jurisdiction to issue conductor's licence for conducting stage carriages in the areas and on the routes specified by it. But section 71 of Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 bars the jurisdiction of the Provincial and Regional Transport Authority with regard to the routes and areas where the Road Transport Corporation operates motor vehicles. Since the Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to issue conductor's licence for conducting stage carriages on the routes and the areas where Road Transport Corporation plies its vehicles, the said vehicles can be conducted by the conductors without holding any conductor's licence.
3. Apart from it the appellant was holding a fresh licence that he had obtained after the cancellation of his previous licence. The order of the Magistrate whereby the previous licence was cancelled is not on the file, so this is not known if any period was fixed debarring the appellant to get fresh licence within a specified period. There is no evidence that the appellant was debarred from getting a new licence. The High Court has in 1983 PLC 1114 held that since the conductor was holding a Gress licence at the time of the termination of his services, he could not be terminated.
The said ruling is on all fours with the facts of this case.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the order of termination of services, the appellant is directed to be re-instated in service.
As the point involved is sufficiently technical and difficult I allow only 50% back benefits to the appellant.