Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KHADIM HUSSAIN VS Respondent: DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, JUDGMENT
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Title:KHADIM HUSSAIN vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS,
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 1986 PLC 438 Result: E. Judgment JUDGMENT The decision, dated 16-9-1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for claiming calendar day weekly rest has been dismissed. 2. The appellant is a carriage and wagon fitter at Railway Station, Sialkot. He claims to be continuously working giving duty for ten hours. He stated in his statement before the learned lower Court that he had no break of rest and worked continuously. But his witness P.W.-1 contradicted him by -saying that the appellant had gaps during his duty time wherein he took rest. According to the definition of intermittent worker given in section 71-D of the Hours of Employees Regulations, such a worker is that who has gaps of inactivity during his duty hours. The appellant is not employed in any such workshop or factory where Railway carriages are manufactured. There is no evidence that at Sialkot there is any Railway factory or workshop for preparing carriages or wagons. As stated by R.W-1, after a train comes at the station, it is chucked and if some screw is found loose or some component is not working properly the same is set right. In the absence of evidence, it may be said that if there are some defects, the carriages are sent to Mughalpura as there is no arrangement for carrying out repairs. The learned representative of the appellant has referred to a photo copy of an award and has argued that since calendar day weekly rest has been allowed to carriage and wagon staff, the appellant too is entitled to the same. No certified copy or original award is on the file. Photo copy in the custody of the learned representative cannot be safely relied upon. Reference has been made to Exh.P.4 also by the learned representative but
---
## Page 2
since the letter was withdrawn vide Exh.P.5, it has no value. The learned lower Court thus, rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant. 3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.