The appeal captioned above emanates from the decision dated 11-12-1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,IV, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his reinstatement in service has been accepted with full back benefits.
2. The facts of the case are that a bus No, 7033 running on Lahore-Faisalabad route and conducted by the respondent was checked on 10th of June, 1986. Three passengers were found to be travelling without tickets from whom fare had been realised by the respondent. The respondent took up the plea in reply to TT-40 that he had not charged any fare from the without ticket passengers and that he had not been able to issue tickets since there was a rush and the passengers were sleeping. Two applications were given by the respondent for changing the Inquiry Officer. The ground was that the President of the C.BA. Union had made complaint of corruption against the District Manager and that the respondent was a member of the said Union. No order passed on the said applications was intimated to the respondent, therefore, he did not participate in the inquiry.
The applications were made to the General Manager. The fact that the respondent of the C.B.A.
Union had made complaint against the District Manager is not denied. In these circumstances the apprehension of the respondent was justified that justice may not be done to him. The other thing is that if he had been intimated about the rejection of his application for changing the Inquiry Officer and yet he had not joined the inquiry, it could be said that there was justification in holding ex parte inquiry. Since he was awaiting for the decision of the applications for changing the Inquiry Officer, therefore, he was condemned unheard.
3. ZRA DEKH k However, this is wrong that the order of reinstatement was not enable, since the statements of the without ticket passengers alleged to have recorded at the time of checking were not produced during the inquiry. The dent was confronted with the without ticket passengers as mentioned in and it was sufficient. It appears necessary that the appellant be given tunity to hold fresh inquiry in the presence of the respondent. It is ordered ow some Inquiry Officer will be appointed by the General Manager and if port of the Inquiry Officer is against the respondent, not the District manager, if he is the same person, but the Managing Director would consider it decide whether the respondent had committed the offence of propriation of bus fare.
4. As a result the impugned decision of the learned lower Court is modified by &reefing that the Inquiry Officer be appointed afresh by the Managing Dire for and fresh inquiry be held after intimating the respondent about it. The decision on the report of the Inquiry Officer shall be made by the Managing Dire for and not by the District Manager if he is the same person who had previously decided the matter. The question of back benefits would depend upon the r suit of the fresh inquiry. If the appellant does not elect to hold fresh inquiry, the impugned order of the learned lower Court will stand.