' This is an appeal against the decision dated 26.10-1976 of Punjab Labour Court No, 3 (Now No, 41, Shah Faisalabad.
2. Mohammad Rafiq respondent was recruited as a conductor on 28-1-1975. He was sent to the Training School, Faisalabad. He had to receive training for one month, but due to shortage of staff on 4-2-1976 he was put on duty after he had received training for five days only. On 24-2-75 his bus was plying from Gojra to Lahore. At Dijkot his bus was checked. It was found that he had left one Ticket No, 849844 blank whereas its duplicate had been issued to a passenger. The respondent had received Rs, 6,80 from that passenger and had issued the said ticket from Gojra to Lahore. The checker had assumed that the respondent had the intention to misappropriate the part of the amount of Rs, 6.80, because at the terminus he had to fill the blank ticket for a short journey. At this assumption Form T. T. 40 was issued to the respondent and his explanation was obtained. The respondent explained that he was a raw hand and that due to mistake he did not write on the first ticket and that he had no intention for misappropriating any amount. The explanation was sound unsatisfactory and so a charge-sheet was issued and, thereafter, as enquiry was Instituted. Before the Inquiry Officer the evidence of the checker was recorded and finding was given to the effect that the respondent was guilty of dishonesty. Accordingly, he was dismissed from service on 4-3-1975. He challenged the order of his dismissal by way of a petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Labour Court, which accepted the same and ordered his re-instatement with back benefits.
3. Aggrieved by the above decision, Punjab Road Transport Board through District Manager, Government Transport Service, appellant has referred this appeal.
4. From the allegations narrated above no case of dishonesty has been made out against the respondent, because he had not misappropriated any amount. The duty of the respondent was to fill in two tickets by using a carbon. The upper ticket was to be kept in the R. P. T. Book, whereas the lower ticket was to be given to the passenger. During the enquiry proceedings the respondent had said that the carbon paper, which he had, was lost and so who had prepared ticket without it and it was by mistake that he could not fill in the upper ticket. According to the procedure laid down he had to deposit the whole amount with the appellant at the terminus. At the time of checking the terminus had yet to come. In case he had deposited lesser amount than what he had received, then alone the charge of misappropriation could have been made out against him. In any case, he had received training for only five days which shows that he was raw band and as such could have easily made mistake by leaving a ticket blank and issuing its duplicate instead. It is a mere conjecture that in future he was going to misappropriate the amount and on that fact alone the charge of dishonesty cannot be made out against him.
5. I, accordingly, find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.