The decision, dated 20-3-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that he neither recovered bus fare from five passengers, nor issued tickets to them. The respondent took up plea in answer to TT-40 that the passengers were students who neither had student cards nor were willing to purchase tickets. The prosecution witness did not accept this suggestion in cross-examination before the inquiry officer.
None of the passengers or the driver was examined by the respondent in support of his plea that the without ticket five passengers were students. The respondent thus came forward with a false plea which he could not establish. He was in reality guilty of neglect of duty. If one or two passengers had been without tickets, it could be said that the respondent was guilty of negligence or was an inefficient worker. Five passengers were without tickets even though as admitted by the respondent the bus had travelled for five miles before the checking squad had entered it. The conductors are apt to miss some passengers in the buses that have short distance stops but P. R. T.
B. Buses travel on long routes. But the charge was not of neglect of duty, so the order of re- instatement cannot be interfered with. However, the respondent was not entitled to back benefits as he was guilty of neglect of duty which amounts to misconduct. He escapes the responsibility on technical ground that the charge-sheet was not of neglect of duty.
3. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, back benefits are disallowed to the respondent. Nemo for the parties.
A. E.