This is an appeal against the decision dated 28-11-1977 of Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore.
Fajjar Ali, appellant was employed as a Conductor in the Punjab Road Transport Board, Gulberg Depot, Lahore. On 19-6-1976 his bus was checked by three Ticket Examiners, who found that he had received fare amounting to Rs. 1.50 from three lady passengers, but had not issued tickets to them.
The lady passengers had boarded the bus at Dera Chaal and had got down from the bus at Bhattah. The Ticket Examiners also found that he had neither received fare nor issued tickets to twenty other passengers. There--upon, form T. T. 40 Exh. D-21 was issued to him at the spot and his defence was that he could not issue tickets, because there was a great rush of passengers at that time. He was served with a charge-sheet Exh. D-16 dated 23-9-1976 by District Manager, Punjab Road Transport Board, Gulberg Depot, Lahore. The appellant submitted his reply on the same page of the charge-sheet denying the charges. His explanation was found unsatisfactory and so on 11- 12-1976 an enquiry was held against him, in which he participated and was found guilty by the Enquiry Offcer. The enquiry report is Exh. D-7 dated 6-1-1977. Second show-cause notice Exh. D-6 dated 26-1-1977 was issued by the District Manager, Punjab Road Transport Board, Gulberg Depot, Lahore.
3. On 28-1-1977 a meeting was held at 9-30 a. m. In the office of the Secretary Transport to finalise arrangements in connection with the setting up of Punjab Urban Transport Corporation. In that meeting it was agreed that officers and staff up to the level of grade 16 would automatically be transferred in accordance with their existing assignments, which they were holding in the Urban Depots to be taken over by the Punjab Urban Transport Corporation. The Gulberg Depot of Punjab Road Transport Board was, accordingly, taken over lock stock and barrel by Punjab Urban Transport Corporation with effect from 1-2-1977. The District Manager of Gulberg Depot then became the employee of tile Punjab Urban Transport Corporation. He on 6-6-77 passed an order Exh. D-2 dismissing the appellant from service. The said order was published on 8-6-1977 vide Exh.
D-1.
4. The appellant, thereafter, gave a grievance notice on 10-8-1977 and filed the petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 on 4-9-1977 before the Labour Court, which dismissed the same vide decision in appeal.
5. Aggrieved by the above decision Fajjar Ali, appellant has preferred this appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant, besides raising other conten--tions, contended that the District Manager, Punjab Urban Transport Corporation had no lawful authority to dismiss the appellant, because the alleged misconduct related to the period of Punjab Road Transport Board when the appellant was not the employee of Punjab Urban Transport Corporation. In other words, the Punjab Urban Transport Corporation at the time of the alleged misconduct had not come into existence. In this connection he referred to section 70 of the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, XIX of 1965, which reads as under;------ Road Transport Corporation.-(1) Government may establish a Road Transport Corporation for the purpose of operating road transport services in the Province and the Corporation so established shall be a body corporate by the name of the "Road Transport Corporation" having perpetual succession and a common seal, and shall by that name sue and be sued.
(2) The Corporation shall consist of a Chairman and two members to be appointed by Government.
(3) The term of office of the Chairman or a member shall be three years ; .
Provided that where the Chairman or a member is a person in the service of Pakistan, his term of office shall be such as may be deter--mined by Government.
(4) On the expiry of the term of his office, the Chairman or a member shall be eligible for re- appointment for another term or for such shorter term as Government may determine.
(5) The Chairman or any member may at any time resign his office ; provided that his resignation shall not take effect until it is accepted by Government.
(6) The Chairman and each member shall receive such salary and allowances as may be determined by Government and shall perform such duties as may be assigned to them under this Ordinance or the rules framed thereunder.
(7) Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, remove the Chairman or any member - (i') if he refuses or fails to discharge or become in the opinion of Government incapable of discharging his responsibilities under this Ordinance ; or
(ii) if he has been declared insolvent ; or
(iii) if he has been declared to be disqualified for employment in, or has been dismissed from, the service under the Central Government or the Provincial Government or has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude ; or
(iv) if he has knowingly acquired or continues to hold, without the permission in writing of Government, directly or indirectly or through a partner, any share or interest in any contract of employment with or by or on behalf of the Corporation or in any land or property which to his knowledge is likely to benefit or has benefited as a result of the operations of the Corporation.
(8) Government shall consult the Corporation in all matters relating to the co-ordination of road and rail transport and in the fixation of fares and freights under Chapter IV.
(9) Government may make rules not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, prescribing the powers and functions of the Corporation.
7. From the above it is clear that Road Transport Corporation is a body corporate and shall by that name sue and be sued. According to subsection (9), the Government may make rules prescribing the powers and functions of the Corporation. Subsequently W. P. Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 was amended and subsection (9) of section 70 was renum--bered as subsection (10) of section
70. In exercise of these powers, the Government framed rules called Punjab Road Transport Board Rules, 1972. Rule 7 reads as under :------ Appointment of Officers and servants of Board.-(1) The Board shall appoint principal officers specified in rule 9 with the prior approval of Government.
(2) The Board may appoint such other officers and servants as it may consider necessary for the efficient performance of its functions.
(3) The conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of officers and servants of the Board shall -
(a) as respects the officers mentioned in sub-rule (1), be such as may be prescribed by the Board with the prior approval of the Govern--ment ; and
(b) as respects other officers and servants, be such as may be prescribed by the Board.
(4) The officers and the servants of the Board shall hold office at the discretion of the Board.
(5) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (1), power to appoint, promote, suspend, fine, reduce in rank, remove or dismiss from service and power to grant leave shall in the case of officers mentioned in sub--rule (1) vest in the Board, and in the case of other officers and servants, such officers of the Board, as are empowered by the Board in this behalf.
(6) In respect of any order passed under rule, an appeal shall lie to -
(a) the Managing Director of the Board when the order is made by any officer subordinate to him ;
(b) the Chairman, when the order is made by the Managing Director;, and
(c) the Board, when the order is made by the Chairman; Provided that in the case of officers mentioned in sub-rule (1), an appeal against the order of the Board shall lie to the Government.
Rule 14 reads as under :----- Delegation of Powers.-The Board may, subject to such conditions and limitations as it may specify, delegate such of its powers and duties as it may deem necessary for efficiently carrying on its day to day administration, to-
(i) Managing Director and Members of the Board ;
(ii) Sub-Committees of the Board ; and
(iii) Officers and Servants of the Board.
8. Under sub-rule (5) of rule 7, power to appoint and dismiss in the case of officers mentioned in, sub-ruled) vests m the Board and in the case of other officers and servants, such officers of the Board as are empowered by the Board in this behalf.' According to rule 14, the Board could only delegate its powers to the three categories mentioned therein.
9. The appellant was appointed by the Punjab Road Transport Board through its delegatee, viz. District Manager, Punjab Road Transport Board and, therefore, he (appellant) was the servant of the Board when the alleged misconduct took place. He was neither dismissed by the Board nor by its, delegatee. As mentioned above this power could not have been delegated to any person other than the officers of the Board. Since the order of dismissal of the appellant was passed by the District Manager, Punjab, Urban Transport Corporation, it was without jurisdiction and as such was void ab initio.
10. Further I find that the appellant had not committed any dishonesty, fraud or theft in connection with the business or property of the Punjab Urban Transport Corporation on 19-9-1976, because at that time it had no come into existence. Under these circumstances, how could the District Manager of Punjab Urban Transport Corporation pass the order of dismissal of the appellant. This is a further reason to establish that the order of dismissal of the appellant was without lawful authority and as such was invalid.
11. I, accordingly, accept the appeal, set aside the decision of the Labour Court and direct that the appellant be re-instated with back benefits.