This is an appeal against an Order of the learned Chairman of the 1 West Pakistan Industrial Court, Karachi, dated the 5th of February 1970. The impugned order was passed on anapplicationunder section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance). The facts giving rise. to the appeal briefly. Put are these.
2. The appellant was a Conductor. His bus was checked on12th June 1969. The Checking Party found that 35 persons were travelling without tickets, although the appellant had realized fare from then.
He was charge-sheeted. The Enquiry Officer found him' to be guilty of the charge. As a result of the enquiry, the District Manager, Government Transport Service, Hyderabad dismissed him, on 6th October 1969. The appellant presented an application on 10th November 1969.
The Court examined the appellant, on the one hand, and Mr. Syed Ahmad Rizvi, Station Superintendent, for the Government Transport Service. Mr. Azmatullah Khan, the enquiry Officer, produced all the relevant papers before the learned Court.
The Court, after hearing the arguments of the parties; came to the conclusion that there was no ground for inter--fering with the order of dismissal passed by the District Manager.
4. Mr. A. Majeed, the learned Representative for the appellant, contended that full opportunity was not given to the appellant to meet his case by the learned Court. He substantiated his argument by alleging that the evidence was recorded on the 5th of February 1970, of both the parties and the Court also heard arguments on the same date and the order announced. His submission is that the application under section 38 of the repealed Ordinance has to be disposed of as an industrial dispute and, therefore, some more time should have been given to the parties to address thest Court. I am not satisfied with the suggestion put forward by the learned Representative that the Court did not grant full opportunity, as the case was disposed of in one day. The learned Representative was unable A to show as to how his client had been prejudiced if the matter was disposed of in one day. At any rate, the appellant had sufficient time after the disposal of the application up till today to present any argument that he wanted to before me.
5. In the next place, it was contended that the Member representing the employees was not present on 5th February 1970, when the learned Court disposed of the application.In this connection, reference may be made to subsection (5) of section 8 of the -repealed Ordinance.
Under that provision of law if a member is absent from any sitting of the Court or is otherwise incapable to sit as a member, the Court may function. In the absence of such member, and no act, proceeding, decision or award of a Court shall be invalid merely by reason of absence of any such member from any sitting of the Court". The provision of law is very clear. The order is not vitiated only because the member representing, the employees was not present on that date.
6. In the third place, it was contended that the appellant was not allowed to cross-examine Mr. Rizvi, who was one of the Checking Party. I have, however, gone through the evidence of Mr. Ahmad Rizvi before the Enquiry Officer. The appellant himself stated on 4th July 1969, that he had completed the cross-examination of Mr. Ahmad Rizvi and he had no further question to put to him.
7. Lastly, it was contended that mere statement of the Checking Party is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of misconduct. Mr. submitted it Majeed that the prosecution should have produced some corroborative evidence. He suggested that the prosecution may have produced one of the 35 persons, who were without tickets. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when the evidence of prosecution party should or should not be believed without c corroboration. In the present case, statement of the appellant on T. T. 40, coupled with the statement of the Checking Party is sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of misconduct. In T. T. 40, it was clearly stated that the appellant had realized fare from 35 persons, but had not issued tickets to them. In reply, the appellant in his own handwriting did not deny the fact that he had not realized fare from 35 persons. All that he stated was that he was issuing tickets to the passengers, but could not issue to these 35 persons as ho was insisting that the two policemen should pay the fare. While the altercation with the policemen was going on, the Checking Party turned up. It was open to the Enquiry Officer not to accept the excuse put forward by the appellant. I will accept the statement of the Checking Party, especially in the face or the statement of the appellant on T. T. 40 Form.
8. For the reasons given above, I see no reason to take a different view than what has been taken by the learned Court.The appeal is dismissed.