' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 16th December, 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be re-instated in service without back benefits.
2. The appeal has not been argued on behalf of the appellant because Mr. Muhammad Salim Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, has not appeared and instead has sent an application for adjournment for the reason that he is leaving Lahore for a Court-case. This is not cogent reason for adjournment. The appeal is very old being instituted on 14th January, 1979 and thus I am not inclined to adjourn it.
3. The facts of the case are that the respondent was a Booking Clerk at Pindi on behalf of G. T. S., Faisalabad. He was dismissed from service vide order, dated 30th September, 1977 after being charge-sheeted and an enquiry held against him. The allegation against him was that on 16th November, 1977 he issued tickets to the passengers for bus No, 7154 and issued Way Bill No, 14871 to the conductor. He failed to enter in the way bill one ticket of the passenger, who was travelling from Rawalpindi to Gakhar. The Ticket Number is 246039. The income of every day is deposited by the booking clerk on the following day but the respondent did not do so till the auditor raised objection and gave notice to him on 9th January, 1978. The notice is Exh. P.
8. The learned trial Judge re-instated the respondent on the sole ground that the charge-sheet was time-barred. The reason given by him is that from the record it could be checked and known as to who was the booking clerk on 16th November, 1977 and the matter could be brought within the knowledge of the employer within two days of the incident, whereas the charge was framed on 10th January, 1978. The bus was checked on 16th November, 1977 at Deena and there it revealed that one ticket had not been entered in the way bill. R. W.-1 was examined before the learned lower Court who stated that on the next day i,e, 17th November, 1977 he had sent form T. T.-40 to the District Manager from Jhelum through G. T. S. Bus. Form T. T.-40 is Exh. R-1 and it bears the signatures of P two authorities. One signatures are dated as 26th December, 1977 and ' the other as November, 1978. R. W.-2 stated that the District Manager had received Form T. T.-40 on 9th January, 1978 because the name of the booking clerk needed clarification. There are two orders on form T.
T.-40. One is dated 26th December, 1977 and the other 9th January, 1978. According to the statement of R. W.-2, the District Manager came to know on 9th January, 1978. In Form T. T.-40 Exh.
R-1 the name of the booking clerk who failed to enter one ticket in the way is not given. R. W.-2, therefore, is justified in saying that the name of the booking clerk was to be found out. Since the District Manager, who was competent to charge-sheet, came to know of the misconduct on 9th January, 1978 the charge-sheet which was delivered on 3rd February, 1978 was within time and was not time-barred. The learned trial Judge was under mistake that the respondent was posted at Deena. The learned trial Judge says that Deena being a small place, the name of the respondent could be very easily found out. The respondent was not posted at Deena at the relevant time but was at Rawalpindi, from where the bus had started and the passenger whose ticket had not been B entered, had boarded the bus from that place for Gakhar. There is no material on the record to show that the District Manager had come to know earlier than 9th January, 1978 about the misconduct and the person who had committed it. The charge-sheet, therefore, was not time- barred.
4. It has been argued by the representative of the respondent that failure on the part of the respondent to enter ticket in the way bill did not amount to misconduct and that in such cases never any booking clerk was dismissed. The charge-sheet is not only this that the respondent had missed to enter the ticket in the way bill but he also did not deposit the amount of the said ticket in the Bank till 8th January, 1978 when the auditor made checking and issued notice to him to deposit the amount. Therefore, at the time of depositing the income of that day, be must have come to know that the amount of one ticket had not been deposited. Even the price of the said ticket was surplus with him and he could come to know from the cash that the amount was in excess. The representative says that the respondent may have personal cash with him, therefore, he could not come to know about the surplus amount. I do not find any force in this argument. Even if it be said although there is no evidence to that effect, that the respondent had private cash with him, he must be knowing the quantity of the cash and thus could come to know that some amount was surplus. The respondent did not know that the bus would be checked before reaching Gakhar. If the bus had not been checked before it had reached Gakhar, the passenger would have delighted from the bus and thus it could not have been found that one ticket of a passenger had not been entered in the way bill. The checker detected that one ticket issued from Rawalpindi to Gakhar had not been entered when he checked the passenger. Since the amount of fare of that ticket had not been deposited by the respondent, C obviously he had misappropriated the money till 3rd January, 1978 when the notice was issued to him by the auditor and he deposited the amount on the said date. So, it is clear that he did commit a misconduct by misappropriating the money.
5. The representative of the respondent has argued that the dismissing authority had been prejudiced against the respondent, inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report said that the amount of the ticket had not been deposited, whereas the amount had been deposited on 9th January, 1978. The Enquiry Officer did not mean to say that the amount had never been deposited.
The amount was to be deposited on the following day and since it was not deposited, therefore, the Enquiry Officer was justified in saying so. In order to prove deposited till the time it was to be deposited, according to the rules and practice. If the amount had been deposited without any loss of time, of course no misconduct would have been committed. I, therefore, do the misconduct, it was necessary to show that the amount was not find any force in the argument of the representative that the punishing authority was prejudiced by the enquiry report.
6. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, restore, the order of dismissal of the respondent and dismiss his petition filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.