The decision, dated 16-3-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. The appellant has challenged the direction of reinstatement whereas the respondent has brought appeal for claiming back benefits. Since the learned Lower Court did not give cogent reasons for disallowing back benefits and the respondent had stated in the statement that he had remained jobless since the date of dismissal the appeal of the respondent has been admitted for regular hearing. So far as the present appeal is concerned it has no merits.
2. The allegation against the respondent for which he was dismissed from service was that when the bus conducted by him was checked on 17-10-1981 near Services Hospital, 16 students delighted from the bus who had no tickets but the respondent had realised the fare from them. None of the without ticket passengers was examined in the enquiry nor at the time of checking, the respondent was confronted with any of them. The disclosure alleged to have made by the students to the effect that they had paid the fare to the respondent was not recorded by the checker and got signed by the passengers. Since the checker was not present at the time when the respondent realised the fare, whatever he stated before the Enquiry Officer was merely hearsay. If he had recorded the statement of any of the without ticket passengers and had got signed by him or the respondent and the same had been produced as evidence during the enquiry, there would have scope to say that there was cogent evidence on the record to prove allegations. The respondent even was not confronted with any without ticket passengers at the time of checking as is clear from T.T.
40. If this had been done the onus would have shifted upon the Conductor to show that either he had not realised the fare or he had issued the tickets. Except the hearsay evidence of the checker there was no material on the record in support of the case of the appellant. The grievance petition, therefore, was rightly accepted and issued direction to the appellant to reinstate the respondent in service.
3. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss the same in limine.