ABDUL MAJEED Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order dated 30‑7‑1985, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. I at Karachi who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O.,1969

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to be a permanent employed in the respondent‑Corporation working as Conductor and at the relevant time was posted at Qrangi Nala Depot, Karachi that on 25‑2‑1984. When he was on duty on Bus No, 411 at about 4‑00 p.m. a checking party checked the bus at Jama Cloth Market Bus Stop and found some lady passengers and a child getting down of the Bus without tickets and it was alleged that the appellant had realized the fare amount from them. It was further claimed by the appellant that though he had submitted a satisfactory reply to the charge‑sheet, yet, domestic enquiry was conducted by Mr. Mumtaz Hussain, Assistant Traffic Manager resulting in his dismissal from service and being dissatisfied with the action of the respondent‑Corporation, he submitted his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 for his reinstatement in service with full back benefits.

3. The respondent‑Corporation resisted the petition on the ground that when the checking party detected that the ticket-less passengers were travelling in the bus and they were questioned in front of the appellant it was found that the appellant had already realized the fare from them and did not issue tickets. It was claimed by the respondent‑Corporation that for this misconduct, the appellant was charge‑sheeted and thereafter a proper enquiry was conducted against him resulting in his dismissal from service therefore he was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter the learned Labour Court had passed the impunged order, hence the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Yousuf Khan, the learned representative for the appellant and Mr. Azmatullah Khan, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent‑Corporation and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted fact that in domestic enquiry. except the checker, no independent witness or any alleged ticket-less passenger was examined or opportunity to cross‑examine any such witness was given to the appellant. It is also an admitted position that even the driver of the bus was examined by the P Enquiry Officer. It is also an admitted position that before the learned Labour Court, neither the alleged checker nor Enquiry Officer had appeared in the witness‑box to depose against the appellant nor the appellant was in a position to cross‑examine any of them. This Tribunal in a number of cases of this nature was of the constant view that such an enquiry was defective and cannot prevail. In the present case also I would arrive at the same conclusion would set aside the dismissal of the appellant from service. Therefore, the impugned order is also liable to be set aside.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I would set aside the impugned order and would allow the present appeal. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith, but in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it must be without back benefits.

M.Y.H./1165/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? Appeal allowed.