Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 4146 of 1983, decided on 22nd October, 1983.

.‑‑ Ss. 15 & 17 and Provisiona,l Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9‑‑‑Promotion‑Railway employee‑Placed in higher Grade Cannot be said to have not been promoted‑Plea of Railway that employees not promoted but only placed in higher Grade not entitled to claim benefit of fixation of pay in higher Grade accord ing to principles prescribed by Notification, dated 22nd June, 1972 for fixation of pay on promotion to higher Grade‑Rejected‑Order of Authority/Appellate Court under S. 15 or S. 17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 allowing application claiming payment of illegal deduction of wages as admissible on being placed in higher Grade challenged in constitutional petition---Impugned order upheld by High Court.

---‑ Ss. 1(4) & 2 read with Railways Act ( IX of 1890), S. 3(4) & (6) Railway employee---Words "upon any Railway "‑Not restricted to Railway track‑--Employees of Railway Administration not specifically engaged on Railway track‑Governed by provisions of Payment of Wages Act, 1936‑[Assistant Works Manager (B), Pakistan Railways v. Authority under Payment of Wages Act and 2 others 1983 P L C 822 held not applicable].

Assistant Works Manager (B), Pakistan Railways v. Authority under payment of Wages Act and 2 others 1983 P L C 822 held not applicable.

Shamim Zafar for Petitioner.

This order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 4146 to 4148 of 1983 s common questions of law and fact are involved therein.

2. The relevant facts of the cases are that the contesting‑respondents in the year 1981 moved applications before the Compensation Commissioner. Gujrat under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, claiming amounts mentioned in column No. 4 of their applications n each case illegally deducted by the petitioner from their wages. It was pleaded that under para. (22) of Gazette Notification, dated 22nd June, 1972 on their posting in higher Grades they were entitled to the amount claimed which was not being paid to them by the petitioner, the learned Compensation Commissioner, Gujrat, vide his order, dated 11^th May, 1982 allowed their applications and directed the petitioner to deposit the requisite amounts to be disbursed among the contesting respondents in these petitions. The petitioner thereafter challenged the aforesaid orders in appeals before the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala which were dismissed on 24th October, 1982. Hence these petitions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents are not entitled to claim the benefit under para. (H) of the aforesaid Notification. It was stated that they were not promoted to a higher post but were placed in higher Grades. It was further contended that the contesting‑respondents were not employed "upon any Railway" and the provisions of subsection (4) of section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 being not applicable in their case the Compensation Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain their application for compen sation. In support of his submission reliance was placed on Assistant Works Manager (B), Pakistan Railways v. Authority under Payment of Wages Act and 2 others (1983 P L C 822).

4. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the .petitioners but find myself unable to agree with him. For proper appreciation of the first contention of the learned counsel the relevant para. (H) of the Notification, dated 22nd June, 1972 is reproduced hereunder :‑

"(H) In cases of promotion from a lower to a higher post, where the stage in the National Scales of the higher post noted above the sub stantive in the National scales of the lower post gives a pay increase equal to or less than, a full increment, the initial pay in the National Pay Scales pertaining to the higher post will be fixed after allowing a premature increment in the National Pay Scales of the higher post. The existing rules/orders regarding grant of minimum pay increases on promotion shall be treated as with drawn."

The first contention of the learned counsel that the respondents were not promoted but only placed in higher Grades, than those enjoyed by them previous to 1st May, 1979 has no force. After the instructions of change in nomenclature of service and abolition of classes, status of officials is signified by Grades. It, cannot, therefore, be said that the persons B placed in the higher Grades were not promoted. Moreover, the petitioner had been himself interpreting the provisions as contained in para. (H) of the Notification to allow benefit to the incumbents, as is evident from the documents Exh. P. 2 to Exh. P/5 (Annexures G , H and J ), respectively.

5. The authority cited by the learned counsel is not helpful to him rather goes against the proposition inasmuch as that clerks were held persons employed "upon any Railway" by the Railway Administration. The relevant observations of the learned Judge in the judgment are as follows: --‑

"Since a Railway is generally conceived as a moving operation, the words "upon any Railway" aptly define the persons employed by a Railway Administration. This does not mean that persons not employed with the rolling stock or moving passenger trains are not covered by the said words. "Railway Administration" has to be construed in the manner defined in the Railways Act, IX of 1890. The word "Railway" therefore, will also have to be construed in the manner defined in that Act. Under section 3(4) of the said Act .

Railway means a railway, or any portion of a railway, for the public carriage of passengers, animals or goods, and includes: ----

(a) ... ... ... ... ... ...

(b) ... ... ... ... ...

(c) ... ... ... ... ... ...

All stations, offices, warehouses, wharves, workshops, manufactories, fixed plant and machinery and other works cons tructed for the purposes of or in connection with a railway."

In these circumstances, the words, upon any Railway" is not restricted to the Railway track. The Payment of Wages Act is applicable not only to the employees engaged specifically upon a Railway track, C but also to other employees of the Administration."

6. The contesting respondents were entitled to the amounts claimed which were rightly allowed by the respondents Nos. 19 and 20.

7. These petitions have no merit and are hereby dismissed in limine.

A. E.

Writ refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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