1984 PLC(CS) 1062

This appeal arises from the decision, dated 20th August, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Lahore whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated but back benefits were not allowed to him on the ground that he had succeeded on account of technical defects only.

2. The facts are that the bus of appellant was checked on 9th September, 1979 and it was found that he had realised fare from ten lady passengers, but had not issued tickets to them. There were seven teen other passengers, who were without tickets and no fare had been recovered from them. The learned lower Court directed the re‑instatement of the respondent on the ground that he was found guilty and dismissed on two charges, but one of those charges did not amount to misconduct. The learned lower Court rightly observed that the allegation that the respondent had neither recovered the fare from seventeen passengers, nor had issued tickets to them, did not amount to misconduct and at the most amounted to negligence or inefficiency. If the Inquiry Officer had not found the respondent guilty of the charge, which did not amount to misconduct, the employer may have prescribed punish ment short of dismissal.

In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was justified in directing the re‑instatement of the respondent without back benefits.

A.E. Appeal dismissed,