DECISION This is an appeal under section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against an order dated .6th November 1970, by the First Sind Labour Court, Karachi. The learned Court by the impugned order set aside the order of dismissal of the appellant and re-instated the respondent from the date that he was dismissed from service. The facts giving rise to the appeal briefly put are these.
2. The respondent was on duty as a Conductor on 11th July 1966, on the bus coming from Moro via Nawabshah to Hyderabad. The bus was checked on Budani by Mr. Saqib, Chief Inspector of the Department. He found that the respondent had not realized fare froth one of the passengers, who was travelling from Chandan to Hala. The Chief Inspector further found that the respondent had Rs.
33.03 in excess of the fare which he was expected to have realised from the passengers. T.T. 40 Form was filled at the spot. The Conductor when asked to give his reply to the charge, in the T.T. 40 Form, stated that he would give his statement later on.
3. Mr. A. Majeed, the learned Representative for the respondent, contended in the first place, that the appeal is beyond the. Without going into the question that the appeal is the---barred, I have heard the learned Representatives for the parties on merit of the appeal. I have heard Mr. Azmatullah Khan for the appellant, at length. I have come to the conclusion that the order of the learned Labour Court must be maintained.
4. Mr. Azmatullah Khan, the learned Representative for the appellant contended, in the first place, that there is an omission in that the Chief Inspector through oversight mentioned that the passenger who was without ticket was going from Chandan to Hala. In fact, the passenger who was without ticket was going from Hatri to Hyderabad. Mr. Azmatullah Khan referred to the statement of Mr. Saqib before the learned Labour Court. He had not stated in the examination-in- chief before the Court that he had wrongly, through bona fide mistake, made the entry while writing T.T. 40 Form that the ticketless passenger was travelling from Chandan to Hala, while in fact he was travelling from Hatri to Hyderabad. It may be mentioned here at once that admittedly the bus was travelling from Moro to Hyderabad and therefore, the entry in T.T. 40 that the ticketless passenger was going from Chandan to Hatri would be incorrect. Mr. Saqib has not explained the circumstances under which he made an incorrect statement in the T.T. 40 Form. On the face of it, therefore, the charge regarding tape ticketless passenger that he was travelling from Chandan to Hala would be wrong.
5. The other charge against the respondent was that he had Rs. 33.03 in excess of what he should have realised from the passengers. The Department has not produced T.T. 2 Form, which would have supported the statement of Mr. Saqib. Mr. Saqib stated in cross-examination before the learned Court as under: "I do not know where the T. T. 2 document is. Perhaps it is destroyed by the Department. I had verified the total amount shown by the petitioner on the T. T. 2 Form."
6. Form T. T.
2. Was very necessary to support the statement of Mr. Saqib. The Court had ordered that this Form should be produced. The non-production of the document would lead one to the conclusion that had it been produced it would have not supported the case of the Department. The case of the respondent on the other hand, was that he had made a mistake in calculation of the amount, which he had realised from the passengers. In support of his statement, the respondent had produced the Cashier, Mr. Abdul Haq. He stated as under: "I know the petitioner (respondent). The documents in possession of the petitioner for his trip on 11- 7-1966 came before me for checking. I compared the entries of R. P. T. Book, T. T. 2 Form, Way Bill and other documents. I found the sale-proceed to be correct."
7. The Court directed Mr. Abdul Haq to produce the relevant documents. Mr. Abdul Haq appeared again before the learned Court, but could no: produce the R. P. 1'. Book and T T 2 Form, as they had been destroyed. He, however, produced Exh. P 1, which gives the statement of amounts deposited by the respondent. He also stated that the Checker had reported excess deposit, which was due to his wrong calculation. H stated that he corrected the mistake and found that there was n excess. In the absence of the relevant documents to support the statement of Mr. Saqib, the learned Court rightly rejected the statement of Mr. Saqib and gave preference to the statement o Mr. Abdul Haq.
In these circumstances, it cannot be said that, the respondent was guilty of misconduct.
8. While disposing of the appeal, I would observe that the Department must preserve in future documents an which the Department relies in support of any charge against its employee. With this observation I would dismiss the appeal and maintain the order of the learned Labour Court.