DECISION This is an appeal filed by Karachi Transport Corporation against an impugned order, dated 31-8- 1985, passed by Sind Labour Court No. I, Karachi, who allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, namely, Muhammad Zameen Khan, filed under section 25-A, I. R.O., 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was employed as a Conductor in the appellant Corporation. That on 10-12-1983, while he was on duty his bus was checked by the checking party consisting of Mr. Majeed Khan S.S. Messrs Muhammad Hussain Muhammad Ayub and Ahsan Hyder Inspectors and at that time he was distributing tickets to the passengers and only eight passengers had been left to whom the respondent had yet to distribute the tickets. That no ticketless passengers were confronted to him or any passenger made statement before the checking party that the respondent had realized the fare from them and had not issued the tickets.
That the checking party realized fare from the eight passengers and gave it to the respondent and then eight tickets were taken from him. That the checking party also did not check the cash with the respondent. That subsequently, an enquiry was held and that the Enquiry Officer did not give an opportunity to the respondent to produce his defence and that his dismissal was illegal. That thereafter, the respondent submitted his grievance petition under section 25-A, I. R. O. 1969 before the Labour Court.
3. The case of the appellant Corporation before the learned Labour Court was that on 10-12-1983, the checking party found that the respondent had not issued tickets to eight passengers although he had realized the fare from them at the rate of paisa 60 per passengers. That the checking party took eight unpunched tickets from the respondent and prepared a report, a copy of which was also given to the respondent at the spot. That subsequently, the respondent was charge-sheeted and after a proper domestic enquiry, he was dismissed from service, hence, his grievance petition be dismissed.
4. I have heard Mr. Azmatullah Khan for the appellant Corporation and the respondent in person as an application for adjournment submitted by him on behalf of his representative Mr. Yousuf Khan was rejected. I have also gone through the evidence brought on the record of the Labour Court and the other record and proceedings of the case. The only allegation against the respondent was that he had realized the fare from eight passengers but did not issue tickets to them. During the enquiry proceedings only Ahsan Hyder, Inspector, a member of the checking party, was examined. No independent witness was examined by the appellant Corporation in the domestic enquiry as only the report A was examined and his evidence is hearsay. Therefore, the burden was on the appellants to prove the charge against the respondent, which they failed to do so. Likewise, in the domestic enquiry, no passenger was confronted with the respondent conductor and the evidence with regard to the fact that the tickets were not given to the passengers and the fare was not realized such an evidence is lacking. The witness of the appellant Corporation also would not say whether at the time of checking of the bus of the respondent, the checking party had also checked the cash of the respondent. Thus, the allegation of recovery of fare from the ticketless passengers by the respondent is not proved. Therefore, the conclusion drawn in the domestic enquiry was wrong. Without establishing the factum that passengers were charged and the tickets were not issued, no case is made out against the respondent Conductor. The safest course is that the domestic enquiry some passengers may he examined.
The conclusion drawn by the Labour Court is correct and I need not interfere with the impugned order. I, therefore, uphold the order of the learned Labour Court and hereby dismiss this appeal.
However, I would not allow the back benefits to the respondent.