1. DECISION ' An appeal has been filed on behalf of the Managing Director, Punjab Road Transport Board, Lahore, hereinafter mentioned the appellant, against the order of the learned Junior Labour Court, Multan, dated 7th February 1974 ordering the re-instatement of Atta Muhammad Bus Conductor with back benefits, who was dismissed on account of misconduct of allowing 5 passengers to travel without tickets in his bus checked on 1st July 1973. The defence of the respondent-workman is that he was not allowed to produce his defence in the domestic enquiry and the Inquiry Officer was based against him.
2. ' The relevant record of the learned lower Court reveals that no charge-sheet was included in the enquiry proceedings placed before the Court. This was the basic document to show the allegation against the respondent. Admittedly the Enquiry Officer acted on the joint statement of three passengers of the bus, namely, K arim Bakhsh, Sher Khan and Hayat Khan recorded by a member of the checking party at the spot of checking. This statement does not even appear to have been attested by the writer thereof before the Enquiry Officer. Because no statement of any such witness includes the enquiry proceedings on record. It is further pertinent to note that while the Enquiry Officer relied on the aforesaid joint statement recorded by some one else against the refusal to summon three defence witnesses, namely, Ghulam Murtaza, Abdul Ghafoor and Amir Alamgir without any reasonable justification. He also refused to consider the statements of these witnesses produced before him as attested by the Oath Commissioner. This obviously amounted to a denial of fair defence to the respondent.
3. The respondent produced Lal Khan, the Driver of the Bus in question, in the learned lower Court who supported his case by stating to the effect that the respondent did not allow any passenger to travel without ticket except three Beldars for a short distance under a general practice observed by Bus Transport Service everywhere. In this background of the case the respondent can scarcely be said to have been given due opportunity to put up his defence before the Enquiry Officer and he was not prejudiced in the matter of justice. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be accepted and the same being upheld, the appeal is dismissed.