Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PAKISTAN RAILWAYS VS Respondent: PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE
1988 S C M R 1760
1988 S C M R 1760
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
PAKISTAN RAILWAYS‑‑Petitioner
versus
PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.183‑R of 1987, decided on 29th June, 1988.
(From the order dated 5‑5‑1987 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in Writ Petition No.890 of 1985).
Pakistan Railways Establishment Code, Vol. I‑‑
‑‑‑R. 205‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Daily allowance, grant of‑‑Interpretation of R. 205 of Pakistan Railways Establishment Code, Vol. I‑‑Orders allowing daily allowance to respondent‑employees of Pakistan Railways beyond stay of 10 days, impugned‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that said respondents were permitted to serve at a particular station on their own request in view of lack of accommodation at their headquarters‑ Rule 205 of Pakistan Railways Establishment Code, Vo1.I did not permit payment of daily allowance when halt of an employee at any place exceeded 10 days, for, in that event, the place of halt was to be regarded as his headquarter and Punjab Appellate Tribunal/High Court had misconstrued the Rule‑‑Operation of impugned order suspended but amount, already paid to respondents was not to be recovered during pendency of appeal.
Ch, Fazal‑i‑Hussain and Associates, Advocates, Law Consultant and Attorneys for Petitioner.
Respondents Nos.3 and 4 in person (absent).
Date of hearing: 29th June, 1988.
ORDER SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑Respondents Nos.3 and 4 are employees of the Pakistan Railways and were at the relevant time serving as Special Ticket Examiners. The headquarter of respondent .No. was Leigh while the headquarter of respondent No.4 was Dera Ghazi Khan. On account of lack of accommodation at their respective headquarters they were on their own request allowed to serve at Multan. The periods of their services at Multan were intermittent, being not less than 21 days or exceeding one year at any time. They claimed daily allowance for the periods they served at Multan. Their claim was rejected by the Railways Administration whereupon they approached reject Labour Court with grievance petitions. The Labour Court the Punjab rejected their petitions. They filed appeals before the Punjab Appellate Tribunal. The learned Tribunal allowed the appeals and directed the Railways Administration to pay daily allowance to them for the periods they had stayed at Multan. The Railways Administration invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of the Tribunal but without any success. It now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is stated that respondents and 4 were permitted to serve at Multan on their own request in view of the lack of accommodation at their headquarters. Rule 205 of the Pakistan Railways Establishment Code, Volume 1, did not permit the payment of daily allowance when the halt of an employee at any place exceeded 10 days, for, in that event, the place of halt was to ,be regarded as his temporary headquarter. It is contended that the learned Tribunal and the High Court misconstrued the said Rule.
3. The contention raised on behalf of the Pakistan Railways needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. The orders of the High Court and the learned Tribunal are suspended in the meanwhile. However, if any amount has been paid on account of daily allow and to respondents Nos.3 and 4, it should not be recovered during the pendency of the appeal. 'The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with a direction to the parties to file additional documents, if any, within two months.
M.I./P‑52/S Leave granted.