' The two appeals captioned above emanate from the decision dated 12th June, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment, in which P. U. T. C. Will be described as the appellant and Siraj-ud-Din Saqib as the respondent.
2. The allegation against the respondent for which he was dismissed was that he had not issued tickets to 12 passengers who had got into the bus from Township. The bus conducted by him was checked at Hussain Chowk situated at a considerable distance from the starting point. The learned lower Court has directed the reinstatement of the respondent only for the reason that the charge-sheet was time-barred, and for this reason it has not allowed back benefits to the respondent, who has in his appeal claimed the same. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that from the date on which the District Manager got the knowledge of the misconduct, the charge-sheet is within time. On Form TT-40 the District Manager passed an order on 2nd of April, "charge- sheet". There is no indication on Form TT-40 that on 2nd April, 1976 the District Manager got the information.
The District Manager was not examined before the learned lower Court to state that he was informed on 2nd April, 1976. Without any evidence it cannot be assumed that the District Manager got the knowledge of the misconduct on the date on which he directed the issuance of charge-sheet. Form TT-40 is dated 15th February, 1976. In the absence of evidence it cannot be said that after more than 1 months the District Manager was informed. The official who may have put up TT-40 to the District Manager too was not examined. So the learned lower Court has rightly held that the charge-sheet is time-barred.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Labour Court No, 1 had no territorial jurisdiction. He also says such an objection can be raised for the first time in appeal. He has cited PLD 1975 SC 450 but it has not been held therein that at the appellate stage objection of territorial jurisdiction can be raised. In the case from which the ruling arose objection as to territorial jurisdiction had been raised before the trial Court but it had been left undecided. An unsuccessful party cannot raise the objection of territorial jurisdiction at the appellate stage.
Even if the petition is ordered to be returned for presentation to the competent Court, the appellant is not likely to succeed ultimately because the defect of the charge-sheet being time-barred cannot be cured.
4. The learned lower Court too for insufficient reason disallowed back benefits to the respondent. The defect is not of technical nature, the very allegation does not amount to misconduct. The learned lower Court has wrongly said that misappropriation was made by the respondent. The Court did not find that fare had been recovered by the respondent. When fare had not been recovered then what had been misappropriated ? However, on other ground the respondent is not entitled to back benefits. He made preparation to misappropriate the fare. Since the bus was checked at a great distance from the place from where the 12 passengers had boarded the bus, it is apparent that the intention of the respondent was not good. But for the checking of the bus he would have succeeded in his bad intention. So he is not entitled to back benefits.
5. As a result of what has been observed above, both the appeals are dismissed.