The decision, dated 26-5-1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged whereby the respondent was directed to be re-instated in service without back benefits.
2. The respondent has brought cross-objections for claiming back benefits. They are being disposed of alongwith this appeal.
3. The bus conducted by the respondent was checked at Town Ship Bus Stop on 24-1-1980. The route was from the Railway Station to Chungi Amersiddhu. The allegations for which the respondent was dismissed from service were that from three lady passengers fare had been received but tickets had not been issued, that from five passengers neither the fare had been received nor the tickets had been issued and that route was not entered in T.T. 86.
4. So far as the allegation that from five passengers the fare was not received is concerned it did not amount to misconduct inasmuch as no misappropriation was made. At the most the respondent may be said to be guilty of negligence or inefficiency which do not come within the provision of misconduct. So far as the allegation that route was note entered in T.T. 86 is concerned there are no hard and fast rules that it should be done at the start of journey. Obviously during the journey the conductors have no time to make such entries particularly in P.U.T.C. Where there is great rush in buses and the stops are at a short distances. The respondent, therefore, had to make entry after completing the journey and thus he could not be charge-sheeted for not making the entry. The only allegation constituting misconduct is that from three ladies passengers fare had been realized but tickets had not been issued. In the T.T. 40 the respondent had pleaded that he had not received the fare from the passengers. Needless to say that the checkers have no first- hand knowledge about the recovery of the fare and only the passengers concerned tell them that they have or not paid the fare. In such cases, therefore, the evidence of the checker is nothing but hearsay. Either the Conductor should be confronted with the without ticket passengers at the time of checking or the statement of the said passengers should be recorded in his presence and got signed by him. In the present case neither the respondent was confronted with the without ticket passengers nor the statements of the passengers were recorded. The respondent, therefore, was rightly directed to be re-instated in service.
5. So far as the back benefits are concerned the respondent said only this that he remained unemployed but did not give the period for which he remained jobless. It is, therefore, not possible to decide to what extent he is entitled to back benefits.
6. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal as well as the cross-objections are dismissed.
A. E.Anneal dismissed.