' The appeal titled above emerges from the decision dated 30th June, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, whereby the respondent was directed to be re- instated in service with back benefits.
2. The allegation for which the respondent, after being charge-sheeted and holding an enquiry against him, was dismissed is that two lady passengers were found without tickets although fare had been realised from them by the respondent. An amount of Rs, 38 in excess of the allowed cash was also recovered.
3. The respondent has been re-instated by the learned lower Court for the reason that no statement of the without ticket passengers was recorded. Only the without ticket passengers are the witness of the fact if fare had or had not been recovered, because the checkers are not present when fare is realised. If their examination in the enquiry is not possible, their statements should be recorded by the checkers and got signed by them and the conductor concerned. Of course if evidence of the fact that the conductor concerned was duly confronted with the passengers who stated that they had paid the fare, is present on the record, failure to record the statements of the passengers cannot be a good ground for setting aside the order of dismissal. In the present case no such evidence of the confrontation of the respondent with the without ticket passengers is on the record. If the conductor in answer to T. T.-40 contends that the passengers gave false statements, that they had paid the fare, it would show that the conductor was duly confronted with the passengers. In the present case the respondent did not contend so in his reply to T.T.-40. The statement of the checker about the recovery of the fare by the respondent was hearsay as the passengers were not examined, so the learned lower Court was justified in directing the re- instatement of the respondent. However, the respondent was wrongly delivered back benefits. The factum of the possession of Rs, 38 in excess of the allowed cash raises a suspicion that the respondent may have realised fare from the without ticket passengers. He, therefore, was not entitled to back benefits.
4. As a result of what has been said above, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, back benefits are disallowed to the respondent.