' This appeal arises from the decision dated 12th January, 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 reinstated in service with back benefits. The respondent has also filed cross-objections against certain findings of the learned lower Court.
2. The respondent was a conductor and on 27th October, 1975 bus No, 7782 conducted by him was checked and it was found that he had charged sixty paisas per ticket from nine passengers travelling from Gujranwala to Eminabad, whereas he had issued tickets at the rate of forty paisas per head. At the time of checking the respondent is alleged to have snatched from TT-40 and refused to put his signatures on it. The respondent was charge-sheeted and finding his reply as unsatisfactory, an enquiry was ordered which resulted in his dismissal. The contentions of the respondent were that form TT-40 had not been issued to him at the spot, that the charge-sheet was beyond the prescribed period of 15 days and thus was time-barred and that the enquiry officer was partial The learned lower Court has held that issuance of form TT-40 at the spot is not necessary and does not vitiate the enquiry proceedings. On the point of the charge-sheet being time-barred, the learned lower Court has observed that the relevant amendment in clause (4) of Standing Order 15 was made on 21st December, 1975 whereas the respondent is alleged to have committed misconduct on 27th October, 1975 therefore, the amendment was not applicable and the charge-sheet was not time-barred as required by clause (4) of Standing Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. However, he observed that according to the settlement arrived at between the C.B.A. And the P. R. T. B, the charge-sheet was to be given within 15 days of the misconduct and thus it was time-barred. The learned trial Court also held that the enquiry was not impartial.
3. This has been wrongly held that the charge-sheet is time-barred. The settlement on the basis of which it has been observed that the charge-sheet was time-barred, was arrived at between the P.
R. T. B. And a Union of Hyderabad depot and not between the P. R. T. B. And the Union of the depot in which the- respondent was employed. If the appellant did not want to apply the said settlement to other depots, there was no compulsion upon it and the settlement was effective only between the parties it was arrived at. Since the Union of the depot in which the respondent was employed was not party to the settlement, the said Union had no right to take benefit of it if the employer was not willing to apply the said settlement. Needless to say that the settlement is a private agreement and is binding only upon the parties to it. The representative of the respondent tried to argue that at the time the settlement was arrived at there were no provinces and there was only one-unit, therefore, the settlement was applicable to the employees working in Lahore also. He has not been able to deny that at the time the settlement was made, the depot was not one throughout West Pakistan, but there were various depots. Since the settlement was arrived at between the P.R.T.B. C and the Union of Hyderabad depot, it was not available to the workers employed in other depots. So the finding is wrong that the charge-sheet was time-barred.
4. The enquiry proceedings show that the respondent extensively cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. The cross-examination of every witness extends to many pages and the enquiry proceedings are signed by the respondent. If the cross-examination had been cut down the respondent would have refused to put his signatures upon the proceedings. A list of cross- questions (Exh. R-27) is on the file but it does not appear that it was made to the enquiry officer. It appears that afterwards this list was prepared to show that the respondent wanted to put these questions to the witnesses but he was not allowed. The respondent instead of making oral statement before the enquiry officer filed statement in writing, which was placed on the record. The respondent was to be subjected to cross-examination after he had filed statement in writing, but it was not done. It was to the benefit of the respondent and the management could have taker, objection to it, but not the respondent. So far as defence evidence is concerned the respondent made settlement that he had filed his statement in writing and neither he wanted to give any oral statement, nor wanted to examine any person in defence. It is apparent that he spontaneously refused to examine any witness in defence.
5. However, form TT-40 given to the respondent is doubtful. It appears that the blank charge-sheet was placed before the respondent and he was asked to put his signatures. He, therefore, drew a line where the contents of the charge-sheet were to be written afterwards. The line is conspicuously present. Exh. P. 1 is the carbon copy of TT-40 and it shows the contents are in black colour, meaning that black carbon was used, whereas the other entries are in greenish colour. The line drawn by the respondent in the column where the contents were to be given is also in the same colour as the other entries. His contention, therefore, appears to be correct that a blank TT- 40 was placed before him to put his signatures. This allegation was also against him that he had swa llowed down the record of statement of the passengers witnesses. This is not possible. A small piece of paper may be swa llowed down, but not the statements of nine witnesses. Since the contents of TT-40 are in different colour and the document appears to be ingenuine, the correctness of this allegation also is doubtful that he had swallowed down the statements of the passenger witnesses. I, therefore, come to the conclusion that the enquiry was properly made but the allegations made against him about the misconduct are doubtful. The tickets for which 60 paisas are alleged to have been charged, were not produced in evidence. In para. No, 3 of the grievance petition it was mentioned by the respondent that in the days of checking fare from Gujranwala to Eminabad was forty paisas. This paragraph was admitted in the written statement as correct, meaning that in reality the fare was forty paisas. The fare deposited by the respondent was forty paisas and the tickets for which he charged sixty paisas having not been produced, it had not been proved that the respondent had charged in reality sixty paisas per ticket. The passenger statements are not on the record and as I have observed above that the allegation that the respondent had swa llowed down the record of statements in wrong, the result, therefore, is that no misconduct stood proved. In these circumstances, the respondent was rightly reinstated in service with back benefits although on different grounds. I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.