Law:

Section:

Industrial dispute---Misconduct-Road Transport Corporation case-Conductor charged for allowing a passenger to travel without ticket and to possess amount much in excess of fare realised ---Department failing to produce relevant documents calculated to prove charge-Version of Department, in circumstances, held, rightly not accepted by Labour Court-Department advised to preserve documents relied upon in support of charges against employees. Date of hearing : 15th February 1971.   DECISION This is an appeal under section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against an order dated .6th November 1970, by the First Sind Labour Court, Karachi. The learned Court by the impugned order set aside the order of dismissal of the appellant and re-instated the respondent from the date that he was dismissed from service. The facts giving rise to the appeal briefly put are these. 2. The respondent was on duty as a Conductor on 11th July 1966, on the bus coming from Moro via Nawabshah to Hyderabad. The bus was checked on Budani by Mr. Saqib, Chief Inspector of the Department. He found that the respondent had not realized fare froth one of the passengers, who was travelling from Chandan to Hala. The Chief Inspector further found that the respondent had Rs. 33.03 in excess of the fare which he was expected to have realised from the passengers. T.T. 40 Form was filled at the spot. The Conductor when asked to give his reply to the charge, in the T.T. 40 Form, stated that he would give his statement later on. 3. Mr. A. Majeed, the learned Representative for the respondent, contended in the first place, that the appeal is beyond time. Without going into the question that the appeal is time -barred, I have heard the learned Representatives for the parties on merit of the appeal. I have heard Mr. Azmatullah Khan for the appellant, at length. I have come to the conclusion that the order of the learned Labour Court must be maintained. 4. Mr. Azmatullah Khan, the learned Representative for the appellant contended, in the first place, that there is an omission in that the Chief Inspector through oversight mentioned that the passenger who was without ticket was going from…