PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF

The decision dated 12‑12‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and punishment of stopping of annual increment for one year and the direction of recovery of Rs.800 as damages from the respondent were set aside.

2. Damage was caused to the bus‑driven by the respondent. Holding that the accident was the result of the negligence of the respondent the abovementioned punishments were awarded to him. Learned lower Court has rightly accepted the grievance petition. No eye‑witness of the accident was examined in the inquiry. Conductor of the bus was an eye‑witness but he too was not produced as prosecution witness. The presumption, therefore, is that the respondent was not negligent therefore the conductor was not willing to support the case of the appellant. The A.T.M. was not the eye‑witness so whatever he has said about the accident is merely conjectural and speculative. He did not disclose how he learnt that the respondent was overtaking a tonga and for this reason the accident took place. The statement of the respondent thus remained uncontroverted both in the inquiry and before the learned lower Court. Since the accident took place due to the fact that the driver of a private bus tried to save a boy who was trying to cross the road the respondent was not responsible. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent had no authority to compromise with the driver of the private bus, therefore he was rightly punished. The respondent rather said that the A.T.M. had taken him and the driver of the private bus to the Police Station where compromise was effected. So, the compromise was effected by the A.T.M.

3. As a result the appeal fails and is consequently dismissed.

A.E./19/Lb.P

Appeal dismissed.