KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE

DECISION

These are two cross‑appeals, one bearing No. KAR‑394/85 filed by the management of Karachi Transport Corporation; while the other, bearing No.397/85 filed by the workman, namely, Muhammad Ishaque, against the one and same impugned order, dated 29‑1‑1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.1, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the workman directing his reinstatement in service, but, without back benefits.

2.Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the workman, namely, Muhammad Ishaque was permanent employee of the Corporation working as Conductor in the North Karachi Depot, Karachi and that on 28‑9‑1983, he was issued a charge‑sheet on the ground that excess amount of Rs.88.80 was found in possession of the workman as an ill‑gotten, money. The workman claimed to have submitted a satisfactory reply to this charge‑sheet stating therein that every conductor, has to bring his own money for personal use for breakfast and tea etc. and that there was no hard and fast rule in the Corporation that a conductor cannot keep his personal cash while on duty and that the cash in question, was not at all checked, while he was on duty. This reply to the charge‑sheet was not found satisfactory, therefore, an improper enquiry was held against the workman and ultimately, he was dismissed from service, vide order, dated 19‑7‑1984. Being against his dismissal order, the workman submitted his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.

3.The Corporation resisted the petition before the learned Court on the ground that according to an agreement arrived at between the management and the C.B.A. Union, the workman was required to deposit Rs.30 as additional security with the management of the Corporation, but he failed to do so and further that a conductor was required to produce Rs.20 before the duty clerk who used to enter this amount in the T.L.6 (way‑bill) of the conductor so that thereafter the said amount could be used by him as personal cash. That a checking party had checked the cash of the conductor and an amount of Rs.88.80 was found in excess with him as against the sale proceed of the tickets, therefore, this amount was treated as ill‑gotten money. Thus, a proper domestic enquiry was held against the conductor in which he was afforded full opportunity to defend himself and in consequence thereof, he was rightly dismissed from service, he was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.0.1969.

4.Both the parties filed their respective affidavits in evidence and they were duly cross‑examined and thereafter the learned Labour Court has allowed the grievance petition of the workman directing his re-instatement in service, but, without back benefits hence these two cross‑appeals. As both these appeals are against one and same impugned order, I would, therefore, dispose of these appeals by this single decision.

5.I have heard Mr. Azmatullah Khan, the learned representative for the Corporation and Mr. S. P. Lodhi, the learned representative on behalf of the workman conductor and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that after finishing of the duty by the workman conductor, his cash was surprisingly checked by Inspector Muhammad Aslam simply on suspicion mainly on the instigation of the driver of the bus of the conductor, but this driver was not at all examined by the Corporation, either before the Enquiry Officer, or before the learned Labour Court.

Further, there is an admission on behalf of the Corporation that no report was received by it from any checker regarding traveling of any ticket-less passenger in the bus of the conductor and no one could say from where the excess amount of Rs.88.80 was brought by the conductor. Throughout in the proceedings the stand of conductor was that the amount in question was his personal cash brought by him from his house for his personal use. The Corporation has miserably failed to shake this stand of this conductor. In view of the evidence and circumstances of the case I would hold that in the absent of any A cogent evidence that the conductor had obtained the money dishonestly as it was not case of the corporation that the cash of the conductor was checked by the Inspector during the duty hours. Therefore, the dismissal from service of the conductor/ workman only presumption, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. I, therefore, set aside the dismissal order and hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly allowed the grievance petition of the conductor and directed his reinstatement in service without back benefits.

6.For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. Both these cross‑appeals are accordingly dismissed.

A‑E./ 969/ Lb.S

Appeals dismissed.