' This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 15-2-1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 5, Faisalabad, whereby the order of the reduction of pay of the respondent to the initial stage of the post held by him has been set aside.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that he had received illegal gratification from Najmul Hasan, conductor while checking the bus conducted by the latter. It has been argued that Najmul Hasan, conductor, was not examined during the inquiry as prosecution witness as he too was charge-sheeted for realising bus fare from the passengers and not issuing tickets to them. The argument has no force. If the appellant by its act disabled itself from producing necessary ocular evidence, it does not mean that the respondent could have been convicted and punished without any evidence. If the driver had the knowledge of the act alleged to have been committed by the respondent, he could be examined as a witness. The passengers in whose presence the respondent may have received illegal gratification from Najmul Hasan were the eye-witnesses but they too were not examined. It has been argued that the statements of the passengers were recorded at the spot and were produced during the inquiry. Only Muhammad Afzal, whose statement is Exh. R-4, had deposed something, but the remaining three passengers did not state anything on the point under controversy. Even Muhammad Afzal did not say that the amount of Rs,20 received by the checker was by way of illegal gratification. He even did not say that the said amount was received by the respondent. He did not name him in his statement recorded at the spot. Since the conductor was not examined, there was no tangible evidence on the record to convict the respondent, and the learned lower Court thus rightly accepted the grievance petition of the respondent.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is consequently dismissed.