' In this appeal the decision dated 3rd October, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 5, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed.
2. The facts are that the bus conducted by the appellant was checked by Mr. Nazir Ahmad, T. E.
Alongwith Mr. Muhammad Rafique, S. T. E. And Mr. Mumtaz, A. T. M. Nine lady passengers are alleged to be without tickets from whom the appellant is alleged to have realised the fare. The appellant is alleged to have refused to deliver unpunched tickets to be issued to the said ladies and instead issued tickets to them but in hurry wrongly punched them. The said tickets were received by the T.
E. From the said ladies, whereupon the appellant is alleged to have cut another tickets and threw them outside but due to inertia they were repelled back into the bus which were picked up by the checking party. When the T. E. Wanted to give a note to that effect in T-26, the appellant is alleged to have snatched the said document from him. It is further alleged that Form T. T. 40 was issued and delivered to the appellant but he said that he would reply after due consideration, but later on he said that he had destroyed the same, whereupon the T. E. Is alleged to have issued another Form T. T. 40, copy of which was not delivered to the appellant.
3. No statements of any of the nine lady passengers were recorded. Only one witness Nazir Ahmad, T. E. Was examined at the enquiry and before the learned lower Court but his companions were not examined. The suggestion of the appellant that in order to show progress false case had been made was not admitted by Mr. Nazir Ahmad. Except the factum of checking every other allegation was denied, yet the respondent felt satisfaction on the examination of only one of the three checkers. According to the allegations, the case was very serious but quite insufficient evidence was produced. Very senior officer like the S. T. E. And Assistant Traffic Manager were members of the checking party but none of them came in the witness-box. This is not believable that on the demand of three officers the appellant did not deliver unpunched tickets and instead issued tickets to the nine ladies just under the nose of the said officers and they quietly allowed him to do so just like spectators. The appellant was destroying the evidence against him and yet nothing was done to prevent him. If Mr. Nazir Ahmad had been alone, it could be said that the appellant did not obey him. Even if he was not willing to deliver unpunched tickets from the R. P. T. Book, the book could be forcibly taken from him and at least he could be prevented from issuing tickets to the without ticket ladies. The appellant by appearance is not strong enough to refuse to yield to the demand of the checking party by refusing to deliver to them R. P. T. Book and T.-26. The allegation that T T.-40 was delivered but the appellant did not give reply and said that he had destroyed the document too appears to be untrue. If a conductor refuses to record his reply or to put his signatures, a note to that effect is given on it by the checking party but the document is not entrusted to give reply afterwards. Since the appellant is alleged to have shown great high handedness by refusing to deliver R. P. T. And snatched T-26, this is not believable that T. T. 40 was delivered to him to be retained for five hours to record reply. The bus had to travel only for about a mile after checking which could not take five hours. It is not believable that the party remained with the appellant in bus for five hours. The whole story is ex facie unplauzible and unbelievable. In contested cases the statement of the without ticket passengers should be recorded. Needless to say that only the without ticket passengers give information to the checking party. That they had paid the fare, so as soon as they give information, their statements can be recorded and produced in the enquiry. In this manner the conductor concerned is confronted with the passengers on the spot and the onus shifts upon him to show that either he had not recovered fare or that he had issued tickets. The present case was not an ordinary case, yet the statement of none of the lady passengers was recorded. The driver too was not examined during enquiry. He was the employee of the respondent, so could be produced. The tickets which the appellant is alleged to have cut besides the wrongly punched tickets were not produced. The true facts were not put forward by the respondent nor the allegations were duly proved. The evidence consisting of the solitary statement of Mr. Nazir Ahmad was not in the circumstances of the case sufficient to prove the charges. No opportunity of defence was given to the appellant. He did not say that he did not want to lead any evidence in defence.
Either his statement to this effect should have been recorded or the enquiry adjourned for a reasonable time for defence. For the reasons given above, the order of dismissal is not sustainable.
But at the same time the appellant is not entitled to back benefits, as he did not show that after dismissal he was not gainfully employed anywhere.
4. As upshot of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned dismissal order and the decision of the learned lower Court, direct the re-instatement of the appellant in service without back benefits.