' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 14th June, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 6, Rawalpindi whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and the penalty of recovery of Rs, 4,036 was set aside.
2. The facts are that the respondent was Ballast Inspector, Kundian and was incharge of Stone Ballast. He was transferred as Sub-Engineer. While delivering charge' it was found that the stone ballast was short by 8,072 of t. He was charge-sheeted for the shortage to which he did not reply.
Without making enquiry the penalty was inflicted upon him. During the period he was incharge of ballast, measurement was made but not in his presence. The measurement record was not produced. No evidence was produced that although he was not called at the time of measurement, yet he had afterwards accepted it by putting his signatures on the measurement record. There is no evidence that at the time he had taken over as Ballast Inspector, the ballast indispose was existing and its measurement was made in his presence. No charge report of the time when the respondent had taken over as Ballast Inspector to show that ballast of a particular measurement was entrusted to him. In the absence of evidence on the' above-mentioned matters, it is difficult to throw the responsibility of the shortage upon him. He could be responsible only if a particular quantity of stone ballast was entrusted to him at any time and that at the time he delivered the charge to Nasrullah, it was short.
3. The ground on which the learned lower Court set aside the penalty is also weighty. According to the terms of contract, before loading, the responsibility of shortage etc. Was upon the contractor.
Learned counsel has argued that contract referred to by the learned lower Court does not pertain to the ballast in dispute. This is factually wrong. RW-1 does not say that no contract was made. He rather says that contract was not present because the work stood suspended at that time. By the suspension of the work of the contract, it does not come to an end, nor become inoperative. RW-1 has used the word `contract'. If he meant to say 'contractor was not present', even then the responsibility of the contractor did not come to an end by the suspension of work. According to the agreement, only the contractor was responsible to take care of the ballast till loading was completed and the stone had been totally removed. Moreover, there is no evidence that actually the work stood suspended. No document in this respect was brought on the record. The bare statement, of RW-1 was not enough. The learned lower Court has, therefore, rightly set aside the penalty.
4. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine.