Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE VS Respondent: MANZOOR HUSSAIN
1988 S C M R 1984
1988 S C M R 1984
Present: Shafiur Rahman and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ
THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE‑‑Petitioner
versus
MANZOOR HUSSAIN and 2 others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 730 to 733 of 1982, decided on 2nd August, 1988.
(From the judgment dated 30‑5‑1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petitions Nos.1627, 1624, 1625 and 1623 of 1982 respectively).
Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑
‑‑‑S.15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Wages during suspension period‑‑Determination of‑‑Adjustment of subsistence allowance‑‑Railway employees prosecuted under Criminal Law and suspended‑‑Pending criminal cases employees were held entitled to full pay in addition to subsistence allowance‑‑Order imp ugnea‑‑Pleas raised that (i) pay in addition to subsistence allowance which was to the extent of half the rate of pay, could not be allowed under the rules and if at all full pay had to be allowed, subsistence allowance had to be adjusted in final payment, and (ii) determination as to whether employees were entitled to full pay or not, could be made only by the competent authority at a stage when their criminal trial ,had come to an end, so as to facilitate determination of the question as to the nature and extent of their implication in the crime‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine the question of law of general application "Whether a decision with regard to entitlement for the suspension period could prematurely be taken and whether subsistence allowance was not required to be adjusted in pay, if it was released in favour of employee.
Ehsan ul Haque Khan v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore NLR 1979 Tr. C . Pb. 352 ref.
Ch. Muhammad Aslam Chattha, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1988.
JUDGMENT
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑This order disposes of the four petitions all seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 30th of May, 1982 whereby the Constitutional Petitions filed by the petitioner, were dismissed in limine.
The contesting respondents in each of these petitions were employees of the petitioner. They were prosecuted criminally and arrested. Following their arrest and pending the criminal cases they were placed under suspension. They approached the Labour Court which directed their re‑instatement. The appellate Court maintained that order. Subsequently, the respondents moved the authority under the Payment of Wages Act for payment to them of the pay for the period of suspension. The Authority following the decision of the Appellate Labour Tribunal given in the case of Ehsan‑ul‑Haque Khan v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore N L R 1979 Tr.C. Pb. 352 held them en‑titled to full pay in addition to the subsistence allowance paid to them. This order has not been interfered with by the impugned order.
Ch. Muhammad Aslam Chattha, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that in the first place, for the period of suspension, pay in addition to the subsistence allowance which was to the extent of half the rate of the pay, could not be allowed under the rules. If at all full pay had to be allowed, the subsistence allowance had to be adjusted in the final payment. In the second place, it is contended, that a determination as to whether the employees were entitled to full pay or not, could take place only by the competent authority at a stage when their criminal trial had come to an end, so as to facilitate the determination of the question as to the nature and extent of their implication in the crime. The reference to the decision of the Appellate Tribunal case is objected to on the ground that it was a case where the criminal trial had come to an end, the prosecution of the employee was held to be mala fide and unjustified and he had been honourably acquitted.
After hearing the learned counsel, we find that in fact a question of law of general application arises, "whether a decisions with regard to the entitlement for the suspension period .could prematurely be taken and whether subsistence allowance is not required to be adjusted in pay if it is released in favour of the employee".
Leave to appeal is granted accordingly.
M.I/D‑26/S Leave granted.