' This appeal arises from the decision dated 21-1-1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service with all back benefits.
2. The facts are that on 12-5-1977 the bus conducted by the respondent was checked and 36 passengers were found without tickets from whom fare had been recovered by the respondent.
Excessive cash was also found in the possession of the respondent. Form TT-40 was issued and the statements of some of the passengers were recorded. An enquiry was held against the respondent, which entailed in his dismissal from service.
3. The learned trial fudge relying upon 1977 PLC 122, a judgment delivered by the Third Labour Court, held that the dismissal order was illegal, inasmuch as the enquiry was not completed within one month. No doubt the same kind of observations have been made in the authority cited above, but the view taken is not correct. The observations made read as under:- "According to the amendment made in clause (4) of Standing Order 15, it is incumbent upon the employer to hold an enquiry within one month of the date of misconduct. No, enquiry was w started within one month and so the employer was debarred under the new amendment to hold the enquiry after such a long time. What actually is required by Standing Order 15(4) is that the information in writing to the workman concerned within one month of the alleged misconduct, or within one month from the date the misconduct comes to the notice of the employer, should be given. It has not been provided that within one month of the commission of misconduct, the enquiry should be completed. In the present case, it has not been contended by the respondent that the charge-sheet was time-barred. The other ground for which the learned trial Judge found that the case had not been proved was that none of the witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet and the F.I.R. Made to the police was examined. Since the statements of the passengers had been recorded, therefore, their addresses were available to the respondent and if his case was that he had not recovered the fare from the passengers, he could examine those passengers witnesses.
However, it is not necessary to trouble the passengers to appear in the enquiry. There was no enmity between the respondent and the checkers and the Magistrate, therefore, it cannot be said that false report was made against him. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent was issuing tickets to the passengers but the raiding party came and took charge of the R.P.Ts., therefore, the respondent could not issue tickets. If the allegation had been only this that the tickets had not been issued, it could be said that due to rush he could not issue tickets, but the allegation is that he had recovered fare from not less than 36 passengers and had not issued tickets. When there is a great rush, it is difficult to remember from whom the fare had been recovered and tickets not issued to him. The right method is to recover the fare and issue tickets individually to every passenger. Since the respondent has recovered fare from 36 passengers and had not issued tickets to them, it is apparent that he had misappropriated the money. Not less than 66 rupees were found in his person in excess of the allowed private cash.
There was an Urs at a nearby shrine and this was the reason that the bus had attracted great rush.
So obviously on account of the area and the rush, the respondent had made money by misappropriation of the fare recovered from the passengers by him. The learned trial Judge, therefore, wrongly held that the respondent did not commit any misconduct. I, accordingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower court, restore the dismissal order and dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent.