Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Revision No. G. T.‑324 of 1982, decided on 29th February, 1984.
‑‑ Pay‑Railway employee ‑ Running allowance ‑ Guard getting running allowance‑Such allowance treated part of pay/wages for purpose of calculating leave salary and pension on retirement -Guard promoted as Yardmaster and no longer in running staff- Benefit of running allowance claimed for purpose of fixation of pay as Yardmaster‑ Claim, in circumstances, held, rightly rejected by authority and Labour Court in appeal‑Labour Appellate Tribunal in suo moto revision upholding such orders ‑ Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), Ss. 2, 15 & 17 and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38 (3‑a).
1981 P L C 389 held not relevant.
Khalid Farooq for Petitioner.
Agha Taj Muhammad for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 25th February, 1984.
The above‑captioned revision has been brought against the order dated 18th July, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala in his appellate jurisdiction under sec tion 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, thereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was a Guard getting pay of Rs. 479 p. m. plus 55% running allowance of Rs. 264. He was promoted as Assistant Yard master with effect from 11th April, 1978 and his pay was fixed at Rs. 498 p. m. As the post of Assistant Yardmaster did not belong to the running staff, 55% running allowance was not included in his pay. He has challenged the fixation of pay on the ground that his pay was decreased.
3. It has been argued that 55% running allowance was part of pay, so his pay should have been fixed treating the said allowance as such. 55% running allowance is included in the pay for the purpose of calcula tion of pension on retirement and for fixing the average pay during earned leave as well as for calculating, dearness allowance according to rules. But there is no rule that if an employee belonging to the running staff is promoted to a post that does not belong to the running staff, 55% running allowance should be treated as part of pay that he was getting before promotion. Without any rule it is not possible to accept the claim of the petitioner. There appears to be wisdom behind the rules, according to which, 55% running allowance is considered part of wages for calculat ing pension on retirement, for calculating wages for earned leave and for delivering dearness allowance and that is that in case an employee retires from the post belonging to the running staff and in cases of leave and dearness allowance remains posted on the post that belongs to such a staff. But when he is promoted to a post which does not belong to the running staff, he goes out of the said staff.
5. Learned counsel has cited 1981 P L C 389, in which letter No. E‑65‑PA‑1/W‑II, dated 14th March, 1977 has been reproduced. Accord ing to the said letter, special allowance at 75% for first two years, at 50% for further two years and at 25% of pay for the next three years is allowed as an impetus for guards and goods drivers to work as Power Controller/Foreman running and Section Controller. This letter does not say that on promotion to the posts not belonging to the running staff, the guards be allowed the said special allowance. So the letter referred to above is not relevant to the case of the petitioner.
5. As a result, the revision petition being without any substance is dismissed.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer