1988 PLC(CS) 671

PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Citation1988 PLC(CS) 671

CourtPunjab Labour Appellate Tribunal

Case No.Appeal No. GA‑716 of 1986

Date1987-03-03

Judge(s)Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal. PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (INTERCITY) UNIT, SIALKOT

ResultAppeal partly accepted

The decision dated 22‑11‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits, has been challenged in the appeal titled above.

2. The allegation against the respondent was that he had realised fare from five passengers but did not issue tickets to them. No without ticket passenger was examined at the inquiry nor at the time of checking his statement was recorded 'to the effect that he had paid the fare. However, in report TT‑40 it is mentioned that the respondent was confronted with the without ticket passengers and in reply the respondent neither belied this fact nor in any manner gave any explanation. On the basis of the inquiry report the respondent could not b dismissed for the Inquiry Officer cross‑examined the respondent. This was the function of the prosecutor and not of the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer performs the duty of a Court, therefore, he should act in such a manner that the worker concerned should have no reason to believe that the former was playing they role of a prosecutor. In order to elicit truth questions may be put, but cross‑examination is the function of the opposite party. The Inquiry Officer by cross‑examining the respondent played the part of the opposite party, therefore, on the basis of his report, no punishment could be awarded. The Inquiry Officer was not examined before the learned Lower Court to clear his position in this respect.

3. Since the order of dismissal is not maintainable only due to the fact that the inquiry officer cross‑examined the respondent, therefore, this is a remand case but in order to finalize the case it B is proper not to burden the appellant with back benefits. The respondent in this manner will no doubt lose back benefits, but his service will be secured.

4. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned Lower Court, back benefits are disallowed to the respondent.

Appeal partly accepted.