MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ Versus KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

DECISION

This appeal arises from the order of the 1st Sindh Labour Court, Karachi whereby the application of the appellant filed under section 25‑A of the I.R.O.,1969 for reinstatement in service was dismissed.

2. The facts in brief are that the appellant was working as a conductor in the K.T.C. On 5‑4‑1990, the Checking Squad checked the Bus passengers traveling from Baladia No. 6.to Saddar and Muhajir Colony etc. and found that the appellant who was conductor on that bus had not issued tickets to 10 passengers for Saddar,10 others for Cantonment Station, 4 passengers going to Shershah and the appellant had realised the cash amount from these passengers. The conductor became insolent and refused to surrender un-punched tickets, refused to sign the checking report and he otherwise misbehaved with the Checking Squad. The appellant was then charge‑sheeted on 21‑4‑1990 and one Mr. Irshad Ahmed Soomro was appointed an Enquiry Officer. He conducted the domestic enquiry and submitted his report in which the appellant was found guilty of misconduct. He was then dismissed on 28‑4‑1991.

3. The appellant sent his grievance notice, dated 19th May, 1991 by registered post. He then filed his petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. in the Labour Court.

4. The only point argued by the learned Advocate for the appellant is that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was defective. That it was adjourned for several hearings and when the appellant was sent on duty, enquiry was conducted ex parte behind his back. That only one prosecution witness was examined and even the Enquiry Officer was not called for his evidence.

5. Mr. Azmatullah Khan representing the K.T.C. has on the other hand argued that the appellant was properly charge‑sheeted and the enquiry was conducted in his presence. That the Enquiry Officer was cross‑examined by Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Khan, Advocate for the applicant on 4‑3‑1992 and his examination is on page 127 of the Lower Court's record. The enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer appears to be legal and valid and it has not been shown that due to any formal defect, prejudice was caused to the applicant.

6. The appeal of the conductor is therefore without any substance and he has been rightly dismissed from service for misappropriation of the, amount realised from passengers. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly maintained and the appeal is dismissed.

H.B.T./2436/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.