1. AWARD SHAFFI MUHAMMAD R. AKHUND (CHAIRMAN).-In this appli--cation, under section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, the applicant seeks re-instatement in service with full pay and back benefits.
2. The applicant was Conductor in the Government Road Transport Service at Hyderabad. His services were terminated by the District Manager, Hyderabad, with effect from 25th October 1968, having been found guilty of misconduct on to counts. Firstly, on 10th November 1966, it was found that the applicant had not issued tickets to 15 passengers, when his Bus No. 719, plying on Boharo- Karachi route, was checked after it had covered a distance of 5 miles from the first station.
3. Secondly, on 24th November 1966, when the same bus was checked at Village Daro, it was found that the applicant had not issued tickets to 48 passengers though he had realized fare from 40 of them. Both times, the checking was done by Muhammad Khan. Traffic Assistant, accompanied by Ejaz Hussain Bukhari, A.T.M., and Jamaluddin. T.A. Reports on both occasions were made by the former, and the applicant was charge-sheeted and an enquiry was instituted against him, as the result of which his services were terminated.
4. The applicant's case is that the charges against him were false and malicious and the result of rivalry. According to him, the enquiry against him was also bogus and perfunctory and he was neither furnished with the alleged findings or recommenda--tion nor was any show-cause notice served on him before punishing him. He claims that he was elected an officer of the West Pakistan Transport Service Workers Union, 1965, and was concerned and connected in certain industrial disputes. Therefore, the respondents had moved application No. 6 of 1967 under section 30(2) of the I.D.O., 1959, in the Court, seeking permission to terminate the services of the applicant. But, that application was subsequently withdrawn and, thereafter, the order of termination of service of the applicant was passed. On that account also, according to the applicant, the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction, as it was passed in violation of section 37. The applicant has also challenged the competence of the District Manager to pass the impugned order and of respon-- dent No. 3 to do the checking of the bus.
5. The respondents, in their reply statement, state that the enquiry against the applicant was held legally and impartially and he was afforded full opportunity to defend himself. He was heard in person before the order terminating his services was passed by the District Manager who, according to the respondents, was legally competent and authorised to pass the impugned order.
6. The respondents admit that an application, under section 30(2) of T.D.O, 1959. Had been moved by them but, since the applicant ceased to be the office-bearer of the Union, the application was withdrawn as it became infructuous. Therefore, the order of termination was not in violation of the provisions of any jaw or rule. They claim that the impugned order is legal, valid and proper.
7. During the proceedings, the applicant examined himself, while the respondents examined to witnesses viz., Muhammad Khan, T. A., who had checked the bus of the applicant on to occasions, and Arz Muhammad Abro, D. T. M., who had held the enquiry against him. The statement on oath of the applicant, however, appears to be a tissue of lies. He states that no charge---sheet was ever served on him nor was any enquiry held against him. But, in the cross-examination, when he was confronted with the enquiry papers, he admitted that the to charge-sheets Exhs. R/1 and R/3 bear his signatures, that these were duly served on trim, and that Exhs. R/2 and R/4 are his replies to those charge-sheets. He further admits that the enquiry papers of the first enquiry Exh. R/9, consist of 5 sheets and of the second enquiry Exh. R/10 consist of 3 sheets, and that each sheet bears his signature. He admits that enquiry was held by Mr. Arz Muhammad Abro and that be (applicant) had thoroughly cross---examined Muhammad Khan witness, though he denies that his examination-in-chief was hold in his presence. He further admits that he was given the opportunity to cross-examine the other witness Mr. Bukhari. A.T.M., but he declined to cross-examine him. He also admits that T.T. 40 forms Exh. R/5 and R/7 also bear his signatures. There were the reports lodged by Muhammad Khan, T.A., with respect to the to occurrences. The Enquiry Officer, Arz Muhammad Abro. Has stated that he bid held thorough enquiry into the charges against the applicant and had given him full opportunity to defend himself. The applicant did not produce any witness in defence and he recorded his statement to that effect, which appears in the enquiry papers. This witness further states that the applicant was heard in person by the District Manager before the order terminating his service was passed.
8. Thus, there can be no doubt that a thorough enquiry was held against the applicant in which all formalities required by law were observed. The applicant, according to his own admission, was given full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to defend himself. Consequently, the applicant's statement that neither charge-sheet was served upon him nor was any enquiry held has been proved to be totally false from his own admission. Now, it is settled law that the Court cannot go into the merits of the evidence recorded in the enquiry nor can it sit in appeal over the decision arrived at as the result of such evidence. This is the view expressed in the authorities of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, reported In 1968 PLC 80, 1961 PLC 1169 and also by 1961 PLC 991 and what the Industrial Court has to find out is that the enquiry was fair and legal and the person concerned was given full opportunity to be heard and defend himself, which hat clearly been done in this case.
9. The applicant's next contention that the respondents had proceeded to terminate his service without the permission of the Court, while he was the office-bearer of the West Pakistan Transport Workers Union, is equally untenable. It is true that at one the he was the office-bearer of the Union, and conse--quently, the respondents had moved an application under section 30 (2) of the I. U. O.
10. 1959, seeking permission for terminating his services. But, according to his own admission in his statement, the applicant had resigned from the office --bearer-ship of the Union and thereafter the impugned order was passed, The respondents has, therefore, withdrawn the applica--tion as it had become infructuous, as shown by Exh. A/1 and P/2, and then passes the order terminating his service. The applicant alleges that the respondents had asked him to resign from the office- bearership of the Union, which he did, and, since he did not join the other Union of the choice of the respondents, they terminated his services But, he has neither put such question to any witness of the respondents nor has he proved this allegation by any evidence, oral or docu--mentary, besides his own word. Therefore, there appears no substance in the allegation of the applicant.
11. Consequently, I find that the respondents have committed no illegality, nor violated the provisions of section 37 by terminating the service of the applicant.
12. The applicant has also challenged the competence of the District Manager to pass the impugned order. But, his learned representative has referred neither to any provision of law nor relied upon any authority in support of this contention. The applicant has further challenged the authority of Jamaluddin T. A. To do the checking, but the evidence shows that the checking was done: by Muhammad Khan, T. A. Whose authority has not been challenge.
13. Therefore, in view of the evidence on record, I find that order of termination of service of the applicant was valid and legal. There being no substance in any allegations of the applicant, the applicant stands dismissed.