Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑390 of 1980, heard on 22nd February, 1981.

‑‑‑‑ S. 25‑A‑‑Scope‑Grievance petition‑Maintainable for enforce ment of right guaranteed under law, award or settlement‑Railway employee claiming enhanced pay‑No rule entitling same quoted‑ Claim based on ground that enhanced pay allowed to persons in altogether different category of posts‑Petition, held, rightly rejected.

Muhammad Ahmad for Appellant.

S. Jehangir Hussain Shah for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 22nd February, 1981.

This appeal is directed against a decision of the learned VIth Labour Court, given on 6th May, 1980, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant, in respect of the fixation of his pay, on the ground that the grievance petition was barred by limitation.

2. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ahmad, the learned counsel for the appellant. while the Railway administration, the respondent herein remained absent though served with notice of appeal.

3. Although the learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition on the ground that it was hopelessly barred by limita tion and it had not accepted the appellant's version that he had been making repeated representations to the Railways authorities for the fixa tion of his pay, as neither copies of those representations nor other tangible evidence in this behalf was produced by the appellant. There is another ground on which the present appeal merits dismissal. A grie vance petition under section 25‑A, I. R. O. can only be filed for the enforcement of a right guaranteed under any law, award or settlement. There is, however, no iota of evidence on the record or even a mention in the grievance petition of the appellant as to the law, rules, award or settlement under which enhanced pay is claimed by the appellant. I specifically asked Mr. Muhammad Ahmad, the learned counsel for the appellant, to refer me to any provision of law or rules under which the appellant was entitled to claim enhanced pay. The learned counsel was, however, unable to cite any provision of law or rules but contended that as the juniors of the appellant had been granted higher emoluments, therefore, the appellant was also entitled to the emoluments claimed by him. In the first place, it has been denied by the Railway administration that the persons who are getting higher emoluments are juniors to the appellant. Moreover, according to the Railway administration, the said persons are working in altogether different categories of posts from the post on which the appellant, who has since retired from service, was working. Since the appellant has failed to show under what rule or law he is entitled to the emoluments claimed by him, his grievance petition was not maintainable on this ground also.

4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.