By this judgment I shall be disposing of Muhammad Khalil's appeal, as well as the contempt petition, captioned above, the respondent being the District Manager, P.R.T.C., Sahiwal.
2. Muhammad Khalil was working as Conductor with the P.R.T.C. And was dismissed from service on 26-5-1986. Under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, he filed a grievance petition on 23-6-1986, which was accepted on 25-2-1987, and the decision was confirmed by this Tribunal, by a judgment announced on 16-5-1987. The P.R.T.C. Approached the Hon'ble High Court, by way of Writ Petition No.266 of 1988. The petition was allowed and the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Labour Court and this Tribunal were declared by Hon'ble Justice Karamat Nazeer Bhandari of Lahore High Court to have been passed without any lawful authority. It was directed that the case would be decided afresh by the learned Labour Court, in the light of the rules of evidence enunciated in the Lahore High Court judgment reported as PLD 1976 Lahore 1414. The learned lower Court has quoted the same in the last para. Of its judgment dated 29-10-1996.
Factual part of a domestic enquiry by the employer has been held to be open to scrutiny by Labour Courts, only to a limited extent, and if at all the Courts undertake such a reappraisal, they have to keep themselves abreast of the rules, instructions and the working methods of the establishment, with a view to fully understand the implications and the background, in which findings of fact have been recorded. Applying abstract principles or standards of criminal proceedings and even civil litigation to the proceedings before Labour Courts, in absence of such knowledge, would amount to doing violence to the whole infrastructure of the Labour Laws. Strict application of rigid rules of evidence to domestic proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officers has been discouraged. The Hon'ble High Court expressed the view that both the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal seemed to have proceeded on misconceived appreciation or interpretation of law, in rendering orders in favour of the employee.
3. When the matter, which was deemed to be pending before the Labour Court, was again attended to, the employee's request for issuance of a stay order in his favour was ultimately rejected by the learned lower Court on 24-4-1996; but this Tribunal on 30-6-1996 accepted the revision petition (No. SL-220/96) preferred by Muhammad Khalil. According to him, he had been dismissed from service, again on 12-4-1995, but the Labour Court had temporarily suspended the said order. The order, however, eventually, held the field, when his application for ad interim injunction was rejected. It was directed by this Tribunal that he would continue in service till such the his case was not finally decided. Expeditious disposal of the matter was, however, insisted upon.
Mr. Justice Muhammad Aqil Mirza of the Lahore High Court, on 13-10-1996, passed an order that the employee might not be reinstated in service, but the Labour Court would decide the case by 15-11- 1996, and if, for any valid reason, it became impossible to take a decision by the fixed date, the employee would be taken back in service, in pursuance of the order passed by this Tribunal.
4. The learned Labour Court Multan has finally decided the grievance petition on 29-10-1996, soundness of which judgment has been impugned by Muhammad Khalil by way of the instant appeal, the result having gone against him. It is urged that the learned lower Court has failed to appreciate that the enquiry by the Ticket Checkers had not been conducted in a fool--proof manner and the conductor had not been provided a fair and full opportunity to defend himself.
Decision delivered by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court is said to have also not properly been appreciated. The employee has harped on the tune, which he has been doing throughout, namely, Abdul Latif, Ticket Examiner, and other members of his team, Salah-ud-Din and Muhammad lqbal S.T.Es. Had not taken the trouble to examine the passengers and even the driver of the bus, which was coming from Lahore to Sahiwal on 19-3-1986, when at 17-45 the team aforesaid had undertaken checking. They had found that conductor Muhammad Khalil had charged fare, worth Rs.31.50, from certain passengers, without issuing them tickets, and he had left three passengers absolutely uncharged. This had all been done, according to the checking team, for causing loss to the public exchequer, and in doing so, the conductor had failed to perform his part of the duty. The enquiry ensued and it resulted in conductor's dismissal from service. The learned Labour Court, which initially disposed of the grievance petition on 25-2-1987, was of the view that the evidence against the conductor was hearsay in nature, inasmuch as the whole lot of passengers travelling in the bus, or at least some of them, were not examined and statement of even the driver of the bus was not taken down. It appeared that the checking team had assumed that examination of the driver would have yielded no fruitful result, as both the driver and the conductor might have been acting in collusion with each other, and both of them might have been beneficiaries of the amount, that was not charged, or against which tickets were not issued to the passengers. The Hon'ble High Court has expressed the view that the argument that a charge of misappropriation could validly be founded only on the evidence of the passengers and not otherwise could not be endorsed. It is, however, to be borne in mind that a member of the checking team might well be acting in a prejudicial or partisan manner, as in the instant case the accused official had levelled an allegation against Mr. Muhammad lqbal Khan, S.T.E. That he had been inimically disposed towards him, as the accused had refused to illegally gratify him. This may be against facts, but it may be well-founded, all the same. According to the accused, he had yet to issue the tickets to those, from whom he had received the fare money, and they had not made grievance of the fact that despite their demand the conductor had kept mum and was not issuing them tickets. If three other passengers were travelling in the bus, without being charged, this also did not make any material difference, as, in the course of the journey, the conductor could not have checked every passenger, charged from him the fare and issued him the ticket. It is only when the bus stops at a particular place, and a passenger alights, that abrupt checking will yield positive results, and one can say with certainty that a person coming out has been left unattended and has not been charged, although he boarded the bus and travelled in it over a few miles. In any case, those travelling in the bus could only testify about the conduct of the conductor, whether he had allowed a few out of them to travel free, or had charged every one of them. Normally, every passenger, who pays his fare, expresses keenness to get the ticket. The passengers, on examination by the team, might have come out with complaints or grievances that the conductor was not issuing them tickets and the object was to appropriate the money to himself.
5. Khalil says that he joined service in 1976. The mishap occurred on 19-3-1986, and never before any complaint had been lodged against him. His grievance petition was accepted on 25-2-1987, earlier, by the Labour Court, and from March, 1987 to April, 1995, he again did his duty, and without any complaint against his performance or integrity. It is submitted by him that the checking team had fallen prey to some confusion or misunderstanding, on the occasion, and had he been afforded adequate opportunity to explain his position he would have been able to do so, but the team acted in indecent haste and in a biased and antagonistic manner and jumped to an adverse inference against his honesty. In 1952 Industrial Laws were enforced and the employees were held entitled to show-cause notices before any adverse action could be taken against them. Labour Laws were enacted in 1968-69 and opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to aggrieved employees. It was even the dictate of natural justice that Muhammad Khalil should not have been condemned unheard, but ought to have been enabled to state the circumstances available in his favour. Deposition of the driver and statements of the passengers would have constituted very material evidence for and again the allegation against the conductor.
6. Even if, however, as a matter of fact, it was found that the conductor had made up his mind to indulge in defalcation of Government money, the amount being less than Rs.50, it would not have constituted a very serious charge, or an instance of gross-misconduct on the part of the conductor. On having found him, for the first the, to have displayed slackness or dishonesty in performance of his duty, he could well be reprimanded or censured, and extreme penalty of his ouster from service was certainly not warranted. I would, in the circumstances, set aside the order of Muhammad Khalil's dismissal from service, as also the Labour Court order dated 29-10-1996, upholding the appellant's removal from service.
7. In so far as justification for initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against the District Manager, P.R.T.C., Sahiwal is concerned, I must say that nobody in this case appears to have intentionally shown disrespect to the orders of any forum. History of the litigation has been described above. The Department had gone upto the High Court and twice has the matter been dealt with by the Labour Court, by this Tribunal, as also by the Hon'ble High Court. It has been stated by the respondent, in the reply submitted on 8-5-1997, that Muhammad Khalil had even remained in service from 25-4-1995 to 24-4-1996. On 24-4-1996 the Labour Court had refused to accede to the request of the official for grant of a stay order, and he was as such made, to discontinue his duty. This Tribunal passed a favourable order on 30-6-1996, but the High Court reversed the order on 13-10-1996, and final order by the Labour Court was rendered on 27-10-1996, by which the grievance petition of Muhammad Khalil was dismissed, and the order of his dismissal from service was upheld. Thus the 'Authorities' had never hesitated to take him in service, during the periods, when he was in enjoyment of injunction orders in his favour; and I do not think that there has been any contumacious or willful default on the part of the respondent, in the matter of the accused official's reinstatement in service, coupled with payment of salary to him. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed.
8. The order of Muhammad Khalil's dismissal from service has been held not to be sustainable in law, and he would, therefore, be deemed to have been in service of the Corporation throughout. He will be entitled to increments etc., as also to payment of his monthly emoluments, over the years.
Back benefits shall be calculated and paid to him without delay. There shall, however, be no order as to costs of the litigation throughout.