' The two appeals captioned above arise from the same impugned decision dated 6-3-1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of Niaz Ahmad was accepted and he was directed to be re-instated in service without back benefits. The Management has challenged the re-instatement, while Niaz Ahmad claims back benefits. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being decided together through this single judgment, in which the Management will be described as the appellant, whereas Niaz Ahmad as the respondent.
2. The bus conducted by the respondent was checked on 12-4-1977 and it was found that he had recovered fare from five ladies but had not issued tickets to them. His cash was checked which was found to be in excess by Rs,10. Form TT-40 was issued to the respondent who gave reply stating that due to rush he had not been able to issue tickets and contended that he had not received any fare. About excessive cash he said that balance was to be paid to certain passengers but had not been paid till the checking was made. At the time of checking the respondent was employed in P.U.T.C. Saddar Depot. Vide order Exh.D.7 Saddar Depot was transferred back to P.R.T.B. But the staff was retained by the P.U.T.C. The respondent was absorbed by the P.U.T.C., in Kot Lakhpat Depot. The respondent was served with an enquiry notice for 26-3-1978 but he did not appear on the plea that on the said date he was on weekly rest. He did not send any intimation or application. The enquiry, therefore, was made ex parte. The learned trial Judge re-instated the respondent for the reasons that the charge-sheet, dated 30-4-1977 was delivered on 3-6-1977, whereas the misconduct is alleged to have been committed on 12-4-1977 and thus it was time-barred and that the misconduct had occurred while the respondent was employed in Saddar Depot, therefore, the District Manager, Kot Lakhpat Depot was not competent to pass dismissal order. The finding of the learned trial Judge does not appear to be correct that the charge-sheet was time-barred. Reply to the charge-sheet Exh.D.7 is dated 10-5-1977. If the charge-sheet had been delivered on 3-6-1977, the reply would have been given after that date and not on 10-5-1977. The date given on the reply to the charge-sheet no doubt has not been admitted by the respondent, but it appears to have been given by him as the pen and the ink and the handwriting appears to be the same. Since the reply is dated 10-5-1977 the charge-sheet must have been delivered prior to that and since the checking had been made on 12-4-1977, obviously the charge-sheet was not time-barred.
3. However, since the misconduct had taken place while the respondent was employed in Saddar Depot, only the District Manager of that depot was competent to pass the dismissal order, but since the order was passed by the District Manager, Kot Lakhpat Depot, it was without jurisdiction.
The learned trial Judge has found that extraneous matter was considered in the enquiry and by the dismissing authority, therefore, the respondent was entitled to be re-instated. He relied upon 1982 SCMR 126. The extraneous matter was that the respondent had no fifty paisa ticket books. Obviously this was not a misconduct committed by the respondent. If in the way fifty paisa ticket book had been exhausted or they were not supplied to him by the traffic department, he was not to be blamed. Possession of excessive cash is also not a misconduct but amounted to violation of rules.
According to rules, private cash upto Rs,6 only can be retained in possession by a conductor, therefore, the respondent violated the rules but did not commit any misconduct in this way.
Possession of excessive cash was one of the charges and since the dismissal order was based on the charges stating that they had been proved against the respondent, the c finding of the Enquiry Officer about the excessive cash prejudiced the mind of the dismissing authority. In these circumstances, the respondent was rightly re-instated. Since the fact that the charge that he had not issued tickets and had received fare from the passengers was proved, the order of re- instatement is based only on technical grounds, therefore, the respondent was rightly held to be not entitled to back benefits.
4. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the two appeals and dismiss them.