PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus NAZIR AHMAD

This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 19‑11‑1986 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.6, Rawalpindi whereby the respondent has been directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits.

2. The allegation for which the respondent was dismissed was that during checking of his bus 13 passengers were found without tickets from whom the respondent had realised the bus fare.

3. The passengers were not examined during the enquiry nor at the time of checking the checkers had recorded their statements. Only from the without ticket passengers the checkers could come to know whether fare had been recovered or not. Without the statements of the passengers, therefore, the evidence of the checker is merely, hearsay and cannot be made the basis of conviction. If statements of the passengers are recorded at the time of checking, the conductor A has chance to summon them either during enquiry or before the learned lower Court to show that the passengers had not said that fare had been recovered from them. No copy of the TT‑40 is on the record, it, therefore, cannot be verified if the respondent was confronted with the without ticket passengers at the time of checking and if so what was his reply. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was justified in directing the re‑instatement of the respondent.

4. On behalf of the respondent cross‑objections have been filed for claiming back benefits. The learned lower Court has given reasons for disallowing back benefits which that the respondent has succeeded on technical ground. Absence of the evidence of the passengers is not merely a technical ground. As observed above only by the evidence B of the passengers it can be proved if fare had been realised by the conductor. The respondent asserted in his statement before the learned lower Court that he was not gainfully employed anywhere since his dismissal. He is, therefore, entitled to back benefits.

5. As a result of what has been said above, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed and accepting the cross‑objections of the respondent, he is allowed back benefits.

A.E.375/Lb.P Order accordingly.