Find a Lawyer

(a) Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑

‑‑S. 5 (i)‑Suspension‑Extension of suspension period beyond 3 months‑Requires approval of authority‑Suspension continued beyond 3 months without approval of authority‑Contention that in view of S. 16 of General Clauses Act, sanction on expiry of every three months was not needed, contention repelled‑Provisions of General Clauses Act, 1897, held, apply where no provision for passing particular order existed in Rules‑General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 16.

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑--

--‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 37‑Question of fact needing evidence‑Cannot be raised in appeal‑Contention that petitioner was not a workman‑ Point not raised in written statement‑No evidence regarding nature of duties of petition on record‑Such plea, in circumstances, not allowed to be raised in appeal.

(c) Industrial dispute‑--

--‑‑Suspension‑‑A continuing wrong and cause of action‑No limita tion if suspension challenged in its continuance‑Limitation‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A.

Syed Intisar Hussain for Appellant.

Sh. Abdul Ghafoor for Respondent.

Date of hearing :13th March, 1983.

This appeal emanates from the decision dated 16‑5‑1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the suspension order of the respondent was set aside and he was directed to be re‑instated in service allowing him back benefits for the whole of the suspension period , except first three months.

2. The respondent was reservation supervisor. He was caught red handed while selling two tickets for Rs. 134 instead of Rs. 114. He was arrested. On the asking of the Interior Ministry he was suspended but on the expiry of three months, no extension order was obtained from the competent authority.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent was suspended not under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules but under the instructions of the Interior Ministry, so rules were not applicable and thus there was no need of getting sanction on the expiry of every three months. He has drawn my attention to section 16 of the General Clauses Act, which provides that power of appointment includes power of suspension etc. This is not the case that there is no provision of suspension in Railway Rules. Section 16 applies where there is no provision for passing a particular order. The respondent was not suspended by the Interior Ministry power of appointment but the said Ministry asked the appellant to suspend the respondent. By the order of the Ministry it did not mean that the provisions of rules should not be followed. The respondent was suspended under the rules and since no order of extension o suspension was obtained, the suspension became illegal on the expiry of three months. The provisions of rule 5 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 were not complied with.

4. The other argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent being employed in the Headquarters Office is not covered by the definition of workman and thus the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. Such a point was not raised in the written statement, with the result that the respondent has no opportunity to meet it. There is no evidence on the record that the main duties of the respondent were supervisory of managerial. This is a question of fact and now it is too late for the appellant to raise such a question in appeal.

5. The last point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the petition of the respondent was time‑barred. Suspension is continuing wrong and no question of limitation arises if the suspension has been challenged in its continuance.

6. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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