1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Chairman of the First West Pakistan Labour Court, Karachi, dated February 21, 1970. The impugned ~ order was passed on an application under section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordi--nance, 1968 (hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance) whereby the learned Court dismissed the application on the ground that there was no violation of the provision of section 37 of the repealed Ordinance. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly put are these.
2. The bus of the appellant, who was a Conductor was checked on the 2nd of March 1969, and it was found that 8 passengers were travelling without tickets. On enquiry by Mr. Muhammad Illyas, the appellant was found guilty of misconduct. The District Manager after hearing the appellant dismissed him from service on 27th October 1969.
3. The appellant admitted that 8 passengers were travelling without tickets. 8e, however, explained the failure on his part to issue tickets when these 8 passengers boarded the bus by stating that there was a competition with private bus and therefore he did not wait to issue tickets before starting the bus. The Enquiry Officer after considering the- evidence before him came to the conclusion that the plea of the appellant could not be accepted. In the first place the Enquiry Officer observed that the distance between -the place where the 8 passengers had boarded the bus and the place where the bus was about miles. There was sufficient time, if the intention of the appellant was not to misappropriate the fare and issue tickets to the passengers. In the second place the Enquiry Officer observed that the appellant should have followed the rules of R. T. C., and should have issued tickets before starting the bus. The appellant did not observe the Rules as he wanted to misappropriate the fare of 8 passengers.
4. The learned Chairman of the Industrial Court after-considering all aspects of the case came to the conclusion that the trial was fair and impartial and in accordance, with the principle of natural justice. He did not find any ground to hold that there was violation of the provision of section 37 of the repealed Ordinance.
5. Mr. Ammanullah Qureshi, the learned Representative for the appellant contended that on the facts stated by the Department no case of misconduct has been made out. He elaborated his, arguments by stating that the appellant was charged for not having issued tickets to 8 passengers. It was not the case the learned Representative submitted, that the appellant had realised any money from any of the passengers. There is not such force in this contention. The appellant was charged under section 7 (2) (b) and (i) that is, theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employer's business or property or habitual negligence or neglect of work.
6. Whether the appellant had committed any act of dishonesty in connection with the, employers business or property is a question of fact. It is an inference to be drawn from proved facts. In the present case not doubt the appellant had tailed to issue tickets to 8 passengers. Mere failure to issue tickets to passengers under certain circumstances may not amount to misconduct, In the present case Mr. Muhammad Illyas, Enquiry Officer clearly came to the conclusion:---- "There were only 25 passengers in the bus and he started the bus without issuing tickets to several passengers and thus he did not follow the procedure laid down by the R. T. C. and now he says that he started the bus in the interest of R. T. C. He had carried passengers in his own interest with the intention to misappropriate the amount."
7. On that conclusion the Enquiry Officer held the appellant to be guilty of misconduct. As already observed the question whether the appellant acted dishonestly or not is a question of fact. In the present case the 8 passengers had travelled about 31 miles before the Checking Party entered the- bus and thus there was more than sufficient time for the Conductor, if his intention was not dishonest, to issue tickets. The enquiry proceeding has not been challenged that it was unfair or partial. It has also not been established that the Management had any motive to victimize the appellant. In these circumstances I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Court. The Appeal is dismissed.