Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Haji ALTAF ANSARI VS Respondent: DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, RAILWAYS
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Falak Sher Title: Haji ALTAF ANSARI vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, RAILWAYS Case No.: Writ Petition No, 7693 of 1990 Date of Judgment:1990-11-19 Reported As: 1991 PLC 505 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER ' Petitioner, a fitter in the Railway Carriage Shop, Moghalpura having been tried in the case registered vide F.I.R. No, 121 of 21-4-1982 under section 506, P.P.C. Read with section 120/121 of the Railways Act, 1890 at Police Station Railway, Lahore for the manhandling of his Foreman Muhammad Nawaz, was acquitted by the Special Railway Magistrate vide judgment dated 22-4- 1984, primarily on the ground that the testimonies of the witnesses are discrepant, thus is not safe case for conviction. Subsequent whereto he was disciplinary proceeded against and was eventually removed from service on 4-10-1983 legality whereof was questiond by virtue of a petition contemplated by section 25 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which was allowed by the Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore on 11-12-1984 on a technical ground that during the course of enquiry proceedings he was not examined at the tail-end, and was reinstated in service without back benefits for the reason that there is no averment of his having remained unemployed during the intervening period, which was, inter alia, affirmed in appeal by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore vide the impugned judgment dated 17-3-1986. Feeling aggrieved thereby the present petition has been instituted after a lapse of nearly 4-1/2 years seeking a direction for the payment of back benefits by contending that under rule 337 of the Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual Vol. I he is entitled to the same. ' I am afraid the contention is misconceived, because the rule ibid envisages submission of a duly sworn affidavit on Rs,5 non-judicial stamp paper vouching the earning certificate for the period in question, which admittedly, has not been furnished to the authorities, nor any averment to this effect was made before the Labour Court; consequently the impugned order is unexceptionable. Independent thereof the petition suffers from laches, since no satisfactory explanation for 4-1/2
---
## Page 2
years delay in filing thereof has been tendered, resultantly the petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.