This is an appeal against the order of the learned Chairman of the Second West Pakistan Industrial Court, Karachi, dated 31st October 1968.The impunged order was passed on an application under section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance).
The facts briefly put are these.
2. The appellant was employed as a Conductor in the Government Transport Service, Hyderabad.
His bus was checked by one Muhammad Ismail in the presence of Tariq Yaqub, Assistant Traffic Manager and the following acts of misconduct were detected :--
(1) Seven passengerswere found travelling without tickets from whom the fare was not realized.
1970
(2) Sixteen tickets were found with the passengers which were punched for down journey, whereas the bus was running on its up journey.
(3) On checking, the-ash was found in excess than the sale-- proceeds of tickets.
(4) The appellant refused to give statement on T. T. 40, when asked by the Checking Party.
3. The appellant was served with charge-sheet on 24th June 1966. Mr. Strajul Haq Qureshi was appointed as Enquiry officer. On the report of the Enquiry Officer, the District Manager dismissed him from service with effect from 5th July1966.
4The appellant made an application under section 31 of the-repealed Ordinance on 29th February 1966. The learned Chairman of the Industrial Court, held that the domestic enquiry was fair and did not violate the principle of natural justice.
5. I have heard the learned Representative for the appellant. I am satisfied that the domestic enquiry was fair and impartial. The admitted position is that seven persons were travelling without tickets and that the appellant had not realised fare from them. It was, however, explained that these 7 persons belonged to the family of a Conductor and, therefore, the appellant had not charged any fare from them and con--sequently, did not issue tickets. The fact is that there is no rule under which the family members of a Conductor and exemp--ted from paying fare. In the absence of any such rule the appellant is guilty of the charge that he deprived the Govern went Transport Service of its revenue. The appellant also could not satisfactorily explain as to how he had Rs. 23.31 in excess of the fare that he had realized. He explained that that he had, realized this amount from 3 passengers that the had forgotten to take back the change and that he had keep the excess amount to deposit with the Cashier. On the face of it, the explanation cannot be accepted. It is impossible fog three persons to forget their change, which was considerable.
6: Lastly, it was contended that the enquiry was not fair inasmuch as all the persons were not produced for cross-examination of the appellant. There is no force in this contention. The explanation to the charge-sheet of the appellant would disclose that he wanted to cross-examine only those persons, who hay deposed against him He- did cross-examine them. In this connection, it should also be stated that the appellant, in the end, stated before the Enquiry Officer that he did not want t produce anybody or cross-examine any one. This would show that he had no intention that any one should be: summoned for his cross-examination.
7. For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal.