DECISION This is an appeal filed by Karachi Transport Corporation against an impugned order, dated 12-5- 1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. 11, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was employed by the appellant Corporation as a conductor and was charge-sheeted that while, on 21-5-1983, the respondent was on duty on Bus No. 162, his bus was checked by a checking party at Korangi No. 1 and found 5 passengers travelling from Saddar to Korangi Nos. 5 and 7 passengers travelling from Saddar .To Korangi Nos. 1 and 2 without rickets from whom the respondent had already recovered the fare amount and did not issue them tickets. That the checking party confronted the ticketless passengers to the respondent and obtained unpunched tickets from him against ticketless passengers. That, then, they filled up the T.T.40 and delivered a copy of it to the respondent on the spot and asked him to write his statement on it. That, the respondent did not write his statement on the T.T.40 and thus signed only on it. That the respondent was charge-sheeted and he furnished reply to the same at the bottom of the charge-sheet which was found unsatisfactory and so a domestic enquiry was ordered to be held. That, in consequence of JAI the enquiry, the respondent was dismissed from service, vide order, dated 14-5-1985. That against this dismissal order, the respondent submitted his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.
3. The appellant Corporation in their reply statement before the learned Labour Court objected to the maintainability of the petition under section 25-A, I . R.O. On the ground that the respondent did not serve the grievance notice and on facts, they admitted that the respondent was a workman but his work was not satisfactory, therefore he was properly and validly charge-sheeted for a misconduct and subsequently he was dismissed from service on the findings of the Enquiry Officer in a domestic enquiry. That the domestic enquiry was conducted properly and in accordance with the provisions of law and in view of this, the grievance petition be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned representative of the appellant Corporation and have perused the record. The only point is whether the dismissal of the respondent was proper and valid. That no independent witness was examined by the appellant Corporation in the domestic enquiry as only the reporter was examined and his evidence s is hearsay. Therefore, the burden was on the appellants to prove the," charge against the respondents 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 realized.
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 realized. Such an evidence is lacking. The witness of the appellant Corporation also could 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 in the domestic enquiry some passengers may be examined.
5. 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 the appeal in limine. However, I would not allow the back benefits to the respondent.