DECISION This is an appeal against the order of Sind Labour Court No.1, Karachi, who by his order, dated 16-9- 1985, re-instated the respondent with full back benefits.
2. The facts are that the respondent was employed as Conductor. On 28-12-1983,his bus was checked by one Abdul Hameed, Inspector and notwithstanding the fact that no ticketless passenger was found in the bus, a report was made against him but no copy of the report was supplied to the respondent. The respondent also alleged that copy of T, T .40 was not given to him and that the checking party also took tickets from him forcibly. A domestic enquiry was followed after serving a charge-sheet upon the respondent. The respondent also pleaded that he was not given personal hearing by the appellants as required by law, therefore, he was condemned unheard and ultimately his dismissal from service was illegal. He then served a grievance notice upon the appellants and subsequently filed the present grievance petition.
3. The case of the appellants is that the respondent's bus was checked by Ehsan Hyder alongwith Messrs Muhammad Ayub and Muhammad Hamid under the supervision of Ajab Khan, Station Superintendent and at that time seven ticketless passengers were travelling in the bus of the respondent and he had realized fare from them. Those seven passengers were, confronted to the respondent who stated that they had paid the fare amount to him but he did not issue tickets to them. The checking party then obtained seven unpunched tickets from the respondent and a report was also made. The checking party then obtained statement of the respondent on T. T.40 and a copy of the same was also supplied to the respondent on the spot. Subsequently a domestic enquiry was held in accordance with law and as a result of the same, the respondent was found guilty of misconduct, therefore, he was dismissed from service.
4. I have heard the learned representative of the appellant, Mr. Azmatullah Khan. The only point is whether the dismissal of the respondent was proper and valid. The record shows that the enquiry was held y Mr.Mumtaz Hussain. A.T.M. And on the T.T.40 form also, the same officer had already ordered that the respondent may be charge-sheeted. There is a considerable force in the submission of the respondent before the learned Labour Court that the Enquiry Officer was already biased and no impartial enquiry was held. The principles governing the ---doctrine of bias--- vis- a-vis judicial tribunals are well-settled. Further, no independent witness was examined by the appellants in the domestic enquiry as only the reporter, namely Mr. Ehsan Hyder 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 realized. Such an evidence is lacking.
The appellants' witness, Major (RtdM.Sadiq in his cross-examination also could not say whether at the time of checking 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 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.