DECISION ' The circumstances in which this appeal has arisen are as follows:--
1. It is stated that on the 2nd of June 1987 the appellant was going on bus as conductor, from Korangi to the Saddar, and a checking party had found that there were 21 passengers trevelling without tickets, and 9 others had old and used tickets with them. The appellant was confronted with the passengers travelling and his replies were found to be unsatisfactory. Enquiry was therefore ordered. The Enquiry Officer had recommended dismissal of the appellant and the District Manager ordered his dismissal on 3-10-1987.
2. The appellant had sent a grievance notice on 19-10-1987 and receiving no reply had filed a grievance petition on 2-1-1988 which came to be dismissed by the Labour Court on the 4th of August 1991 resulting in this appeal.
3. It is an admitted position that the passengers travelling on the bus without tickets or with used tickets were neither examined at the enquiry or at the Labour Court. It is also an admitted position that the cash bag of the appellant was not searched which could indicate that there was any excess money lying therein.
4. There are a number of judgments from our Tribunal that the non-examination of the passengers or any proof of excess money is sufficient to reject the prosecution case even though there might be mention in the TT-40 from that the conductor was confronted with the passengers who was accused of not giving them tickets. (See PLC 1991 p. 364--District Manager v. Muhammad Saeed decided on 11th March 1990 (2) PLC 1990 p. 137 District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation v.
Fareed Khan, decided on 15th August, 1989 ).
5. Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro had referred to case from the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal where contrary view was taken in 1988 PLC page 279. However, the same view was not adhered to by the aforesaid Tribunal in Mulazim Hussain Shah v. Punjab Road Transport Corporation and another reported in 1988 PLC page 823.
6. It is true that the appellant's statement at the trial was not very satisfactory, but if that is to be the only basis to run him down, then it has to be read as a whole and read that way the charge cannot be driven home against him as he had gone on to say that he was exhausted and dizzy because of heat and had on that account failed to issue tickets.
7. I will therefore set aside the order of the Labour Court and allow the appeal. However, since the appellant has been reinstated on technical ground and also there are no mala fides alleged at all, I allow the appeal of the appellant but without back benefits. Orders accordingly.