This is an appeal preferred against the decision, dated 15-5-1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala, whereby, the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.
2. The allegation against the appellant was that he had realised fare from the passengers but had not issued tickets and thus embezzled the fare. It has been argued without force that opportunity of defence was not given as it was not inquired from the appellant if he wanted to produce any evidence in defence. In cases where proceedings have been included on the day on which prosecution evidence is closed, it is necessary to inquire from the worker about the production of defence, if any. But where after the close of the case of the prosecution the inquiry is adjourned, it is not necessary to make such an inquiry as the worker is at liberty to produce evidence in defence,.
In the present case the prosecution evidence was closed on 9-6-1984 and inquiry proceedings were closed on 11-6-1984 after recording the defence statement of the appellant. He thus had opportunity to produce defence but he did not do so.
3. Form TT-40 shows that at the tune 4 checking the appellant was duly confronted with without ticket passengers. In reply he did not deny the factum of such a confrontation. So examination of passenger during the inquiry in these circumstances was not necessary. The grievance petition of the appellant was thus rightly disallowed.
4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.