' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 30th March, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits.
2. The allegations against the respondent for which he was charge-sheeted were that before his bus was to start from Green Town terminus, the time-checker asked the respondent who was conducting the bus to issue tickets to the passengers already sitting in the bus before starting the bus. The respondent refused and instead abused the time-checker. The learned Presiding Officer has held that second charge i. e. That the respondent abused the time-checker amounted to misconduct being disorderly behavior, but the first charge i. e. Refusal to issue tickets was only violation of rules and, therefore, was not misconduct, but an offence falling under Standing Order 15
(1) (ii) (a) of the W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
The person who asked him to issue tickets was time-checker but there is no evidence on the record about the duties of the said employee. A lawful order is that which an employee is competent to give. In the absence of evidence only this much can be said that the duty of the time-checker was only to check the time of the arrival of the buses and the time it started. The respondent could issue tickets while the bus was travelling also and if he had detained the bus and had started issuing tickets, the bus would have been delayed. It is, therefore, doubtful if the direction of the time checker is covered by clause (a) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (2) of Standing Order 15. Since refusal on the part of the respondent to carry the order of the time-checker did not amount to misconduct, the dismissing authority was not justified in dismissing him on both the charges. As the Enquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of both the charges, in the eye of the dismissing authority the offence of the respondent was aggravated. The dismissing authority may have prescribed some lesser penalty if the Enquiry Officer had found the respondent guilty of only one charge. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court rightly relied upon 1980 PLC 104 and directed his re-instatement without back benefits. There is no force in appeal, which is dismissed.