' This is an appeal against order, dated 6-12-1990, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, IV at Karachi, whereby grievance application of the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan, learned representative for the appellant and Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro, learned representative for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The brief facts of the case are, that the appellant was conductor on the bus of the respondents on 6-8-1989 which was running from Malir Depot to Clifton. He is alleged to have re-sold old tickets to 14 passengers. The bus was inspected by Checking Party which recovered 14 old tickets from passengers and also 49 old tickets from the person of the respondent. TT-40 was prepared by the Checking Party at the spot, but the appellant refused to sign the same. He was charge-sheeted for the alleged act of misconduct on 19-8-1989 vide charge-sheet, dated 19-8-1989, Exh. A/4. Domestic enquiry was held through Mr. Syed Mumtaz Hussain, Assistant Traffic Manager, Karachi. The appellant did not participate in the domestic enquiry in spite of notice. The appellant was found guilty in the domestic enquiry and was, therefore, dismissed from service vide order, dated 8-11- 1989. After serving grievance notice upon the respondent, the appellant filed grievance petition.
4. The only question to be decided is as to whether the appellant knowingly re-sold the old tickets to the passengers. He had admitted in the cross-examination that he was shown TT-40 alongwith 14 tickets and other 49 tickets taken by the Checking Party from him but stated that it was incorrect to suggest that he refused to sign TT-40 Form which has been produced as Exh. A/2. He has also admitted that these tickets attached alongwith Exh. A/2 were issued to Matloob Ahmed, Conductor on 2-8-1989 but contended that the same were issued to him under TL-6 Exh: A/3, on 3-8-1989 and these tickets were the balance of the tickets issued to him on 3-8-1980. He was admittedly issued tickets on 6-8-1989 viz. The day of alleged misconduct vide TL-6 Exh. A/1. He admits in the cross- examination, that TL-6 Form contains the name of conductor, the number of tickets for sale etc.
5. The tickets recovered from passengers which were also annexed alongwith TT-40 Form Exh. A/2 bear serial Nos. 246133 to 246142 and 246144 to 246147. The 49 tickets admittedly recovered from the appellant are also attached to this Exh. A/2, and bear Serial Nos. 246152 to 246200. Exh. A/1, which is TL-6 which also contains number of tickets viz. 'First Number of Denominational Tickets' issued to the appellant on 6-8-1989, but it does not show that the tickets of the aforesaid serial Nos.
Were issued to the appellant. The tickets issued to the appellant bear Serial Nos. From 246251. The respondent claims that they were the balance of tickets issued to him under TL-6, dated 3-8-1989 Exh. A/3, which shows that the ticket from 246200 were issued to the respondent. Thus, one of the tickets recovered from the appellant bearing Serial No, 246200 appears to have been issued to him on 3-8-1989 but the other tickets, which were recovered from the passengers or from the appellant, were not issued to him under any TL-6, dated 3-8-1989 or 6-8-1989 Exhs. A/3 and A/1 respectively.
On his own admission these tickets had been issued to Matloob Hussain, Conductor, on 2-8-1989.
Thus the appellant has failed to explain as to how he came into possession of these tickets on 6-8- 1989 which he sold to the passengers or which were recovered from his possession. No doubt no report regarding theft of these tickets had been filed to the respondent nor any action had been taken against Matloob Hussain or other concerned persons, but that does not absolve the appellant from his misconduct in selling the tickets which had probably been already sold and which were not issued to him and for which normally he was not accountable and would not have rendered account to the respondent. This act of re-selling sold old tickets appears to be 'racket' prevailing in the K.T.C. Which the respondent should better take care to prevent. The charge, however, stands proved against the appellant.
6. The next grievance of the appellant is that enquiry conducted against him was not fair. In the cross-examination he stated, that he had received notice of enquiry for appearance on 22-10-1989 and the time for enquiry according to the copy of the notice received by him was 9-00 a.m. Which he produced as Exh. A/8 but the Enqury Officer reached the office at 1-00 p.m. To whom he gave application that he was waiting since 9 a.m. And that the witnesses had also gone away but he threw away application. He admits that enquiry was again fixed on 24-10-1989. This admission shows that he had the knowledge of the date of enquiry. The enquiry papers show, that the witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer on 24-10-1989, but the respondent remained absent. The appellant has not given any reason as to why he did not appear on 24-10-1989 before Enquiry Officer. The witnesses have fully implicated the appellant in the enquiry proceedings and Enquiry Officer found him guilty of misconduct. Enquiry Officer, Syed Mumtaz Hussain was examined before learned Labour Court and he has withstood the test of cross-examination. It was suggested to the Enquiry Officer that he did not conduct the enquiry at all and that he did not discuss charge-sheet in the enquiry report, which is denied by the Enquiry Officer and also stands belied by the enquiry papers produced by the Enquiry Officer.
7. For the aforesaid reasons I entirely agree with the learned Labour Court that the charges stand proved against the appellant. I find no merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.