This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Chairman of the Second Industrial Court, Karachi dated December 3, 1968. .The impugned order was passed on an application under section 30(2) of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, hereinafter called the Ordinance, for permis--sion to dismiss the appellant, Rab Nawaz, who was an employee of the respondent, G. T. S. The appellant was found to have committed misconduct on 12th September 1967, inasmuch as though he had realised fare from 8 passengers who were travelling from Abdullah to Shikarpur but had not issued tickets to them. The appellant was charge-sheeted on 14th September 1967, and Mr. Abdul Rehman Ansari was appointed an Enquiry Officer. On the report of the Enquiry Officer the 'District Manager, G. T. S., Sukkur ordered that permission of the Industrial Court should be obtained to dismiss the appellant. The learned Industrial Court recorded the statement of Mr. Abdul Rehman Ansari on behalf of the G. T. S. and that of the appellant. The learned Industrial Court held that the domestic enquiry was fair, impartial and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and granted the application.
2. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned Representative for the appellant contended in the first place that the Enquiry Officer should have examined all the persons composing the-Checking Party namely, Ghulam Hussain, Noor Khan, A. T. M. and Adalat Shah. The Enquiry Officer examined only Ghulam Hussain. There is not much force in the contention that the Enquiry Officer should have examined all the three persons. In the absence of anything in the statement of Ghulam Hussain that he bad any motive to falsely implicate the appellant it was not necessary for the Enquiry Officer to examine any other person to corroborate the statement of Ghulam Hussain. It is open to the Enquiry Officer to believe the statement of Ghulam Hussain! as against the statement of the defence.
3. In the second place it was submitted that the statement of defence witnesses namely that of Abdul Samad and Allah Dino should have been believed. They had stated that some persons boarded the bus at the bus-stop of Lodhra. They further stated that-the Conductor, after realising fare from them, started issuing tickets when they asked him to start the bus as the bus was late and issue tickets in the running bus. These witnesses cannot be believed for one simple reason that what they stated is not usually done. Abdul Samad stated as under:- The statement of Allah Dino is also the same. Their statements came to this that the Conductor had realised the fare from all the passengers who boarded at Lodhra and started issuing tickets to them. The usual practice is to realise fare from one passenger and issue ticket to him and then proceed to the next. The conduct of the appellant that he realised fare from all the passengers who boarded at Lodhra is very unusual. He is expected to realise fare and then issue tickets one by one and not to realise fare from all the persons and then issue tickets to them. This is what the appellant stated in his reply to the charge-sheet. He stated as under:- On the other hand he stated in his examination-in-chief before the learned Chairman that he had not realised fare from the passengers who boarded at Lodhra. In view of his own contradictory statement the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to have acted illegally in accepting the statement of Ghulam Hussain who checked the bus of the appellant.
4. I do not find that the domestic enquiry was unfair or against the principle of natural justice. The impugned order cannot be assailed on the ground urged by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi. The appeal is dismissed.