' This appeal arises from the decision dated 26-9-1977 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,4, Faisalabad, whereby he accepted the grievance petition of the respondent and set aside the order of the appellant regarding deduction of Rs,1,000 from the wages of the respondent. It was also directed that the amount already recovered should be refunded.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent, who was employed as driver in the appellant establishment, was driving Bus No,9588 on Lahore-Faisalabad route on 4-9-1974. Near Jhuggi Sial the bus received a jump, resulting in the breakage of central bolt. The bus turned turtle and was damaged. The damage, thereafter, was assessed to Rs,4,000. The respondent was charge- sheeted, an enquiry held and he was fined Rs,1,000 which amount was ordered to be deducted from his pay in 20 equal instalments from December, 1976 onward. The grievance petition of the respondent was opposed by the appellant, who inter alia raised the point of limitation. The stand taken by the respondent was that he had come to know of the imposition of fine on 1-12-1976 when an amount of Rs,50 was deducted from his pay. Since this evidence was not rebutted, the lower court treated the grievance petition as within time. It was also pleaded by the appellant that no grievance notice had been served but the point was replied by the lower court in favour of the respondent. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court was also challenged by the appellant, but this objection was also overruled. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant before the lower court. One is Syed Zulfiqar Hussain, Traffic Manager, and the other is Dildar Mohammad, Foreman, D.W.
2. D.W. 1 admitted that he was not an expert. He even did not know what is a technical and mechanical defect. However, Dildar Mohammad (D.W. 2) is a mechanic and his evidence supported the case of the respondent. He said that on account of a sudden jump received by the bus at night, the central bolt was broken as a result of which the bus turned turtle. D.W. 1 did not record the evidence of any passenger because when he reached there was present none. Only the persons travelling in the bus or who were present near the place of accident could tell about the speed of the bus. All the witnesses examined by the respondent stated that the bus was not running on high speed. It appears that due to defective road condition the bus all of a sudden at night received a jerk, which resulted in the breakage of the central bolt. Obviously, a sudden bad pulse of road cannot be visible at night from distance. When the vehicle reaches near the defective place, it becomes difficult to stop the bus or to decrease its speed to dead slow. The learned lower court rightly found that the accident was not due to any rash or negligent act of the respondent.
The order of imposition of fine was rightly set aside. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.