' This appeal arises from the decision dated 12th October, 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that he had recovered fare from 12 passengers but had not issued tickets to them. The respondent was charge-sheeted and enquiry held against him which culminated in his dismissal.
3. In written statement before the lower Court the appellant had taken up the objection that the grievance notice had not been served but the lower Court has given the finding that the signatures of the clerk about the receipt of grievance notice tally with his admitted signatures. The signatures of the respondent were not obtained upon the statements of the passengers, therefore, such statements are doubtful. One of the statements bears the signatures of the passengers but since the signatures of the respondent were not received on it the said statement is doubtful. In cases where the passenger is not only to be examined before the Enquiry Officer, his statement should be recorded and got signed by him and the conductor concerned. If this s done, the conductor had the notice of such a statement and is in a position to summon the said person on the address given by him in is statement to prove that he had not received the fare from him. Since the signatures of the respondent were not received on the statement of the passenger witnesses, firstly the statement was doubtful and secondly he had no opportunity to summon the witness. The learned counsel for the appellant has wrongly argued that the respondent in reply to the charge- sheet admitted that he had received the fare and was issuing tickets when the checking party boarded the bus. He stated that he had issued tickets to nine passengers and bad recovered fare from two passengers and was issuing tickets to them when the bus was stopped y the checking party. Two persons from whom he had received fare and wanted to issue tickets may be related to each other, therefore, he may have charged fare from both of them or one of them had paid fare for two tickets. So the respondent did not make any admission. Since the signatures were not received on the statements of the passengers, the passengers should have been examined at the enquiry.
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that no grievance notice was served in this case and the lower Court wrongly found that on the copy of the grievance notice the signatures of the despatch clerk tallied with the signatures on peon book. The clerk was examined before the lower Court and he stated that he did not receive any notice from the respondent. I have compared the signatures appearing on the copy of the grievance notice at point 'A' with the admitted signatures appearing on page 23 of the peon book. My view is that the signatures do not tally. The disputed signatures at point 'A' show that the person who put the signatures does not lift his pen when he starts putting signatures upto the last when he completes the initials, but the admitted signatures show that after putting two legs of capital letter 'A' the person putting the signatures lifts the pen and puts remaining portion of the initials at a stretch without lifting the pen before completing them. The disputed signatures at point 'A' show that after completing the right leg of 'A', the pen moves a bit upward making a loop, then goes towards the left crossing the other leg of letter' 'A' and then returns back again making a loop and goes towards the right to put another letter. In the admitted signatures the two loops connected with letter 'A' do not appear. The remaining letters in the two signatures also do not tally and differ in shape as well as in characteristics. Even to a naked eye it is clear that the disputed signatures at point 'A' of the copy of the grievance notice, do not tally with the admitted signatures appearing at page 23 of the peon book. Since the despatch clerk who is alleged to have been delivered the notice denied to have received the notice the solitary statement of the respondent in this respect stood controverted leaving no evidence to the effect that the grievance notice was served upon the appellant. The learned lower Court, therefore, had wrongly found that the grievance notice was served. The provisions of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 with regard to the service of grievance notice are mandatory and where service of grievance notice is not proved, the application given under section 25-A is not competent. I, therefore, accept, the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent.