Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑401 of 1983, decided on 15th August, 1984.

‑‑‑Railway employees‑‑Assistant charge-men (designated as Sub‑Engineer) in Grade‑I‑‑Claiming Grades‑II to IV and 25% in scale No. 16‑‑Claim not supported by any document‑‑Claim, in circumstances, held, rightly rejected by Labour Court‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).

‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Limitation‑‑Starts from date relevant order coming to notice of petitioner‑‑Sub‑Engineers of Pakistan Railways claiming admissibility of Grades II to IV on basis of some office order‑ Such office order not placed on record‑‑Petition resisted as time- barred‑‑No proof or indication as to when such office order brought to notice of petitioners‑‑Objection as to limitation, in circumstances, repelled.

Asmat Kamal for Appellants.

Hamid Mahmood Malik for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 10th July, 1984.

The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision, dated 27‑6‑1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellants for being placed in four grades of Sub‑Engineer Grade‑I, Sub‑Engineer Grade‑II, Sub‑Engineer Grade‑III and Sub‑Engineer Grade‑IV and placed in NPS‑11, 12, 14 and 16.

2. The case of the appellants is that they are Assistant Charge-men now designated as Sub‑Engineers. This status of the appellants is denied by the respondents. Two grievance petitions were brought by the appellants one from the dismissal of which the present appeal arises and the other for piece rate profits. All the relevant documents are on the other file. As both the cases are between the same parties, the documents filed in the case of piece rate profits can be looked into to decide the present case. All the paras. of the writ petition have been admitted in Exh. P.1. The said document is a reply/comments to a writ petition brought by the appellants against the respondents in the High Court. The status of being Assistant Charge-man is denied by the respondent but in para. 1 of Exh. P.1 it is admitted. In Exh. P.1 it was urged that Assistant Charge-men were designated as Sub‑Engineers and this para. was admitted. From paras. 2(iii) and 3 read with para. 1 of Exh. P.1 this is proved that the appellants are Assistant Charge-men (now designated as Sub‑Engineers). Learned counsel for the appellants has in his argument said that according to notification Exh. P.19, the Sub‑Engineers are entitled to be placed in Grades I to IV but no such document is on this file or in the case of piece rate profits. Exh. P.19 in the other case is educational certificate of Mr. Zahid. I have not been able to find out any notification on the record that could have shown that the Sub‑Engineers were directed to the placed in Grades‑I to IV. The learned lower Court has rightly held that Assistant Charge-men (Sub‑Engineers) belong to Grade‑I and the remaining three grades are meant for other categories. Likewise no 'document can be found to support the claim of the appellants that 25% Sub‑Engineers are to be placed in scale No.16.

3. However, the learned lower Court has wrongly held that the grievance petition was time‑barred. This is not the case of the respondents that on a particular date the claim of the appellants was rejected, so that it may be said that from the said date the grievance petition and the grievance notice are time‑barred. The appellants claim to be placed in four grades on the basis of an alleged office order which is not on the file. If at all there is any office order, since it is not said to be a notification duly published in any official Gazette, the question of limitation could have arisen if it had been shown that on a particular date the said office order was brought to the notice of the appellants and from the said date the grievance notice and the petition were time‑barred.

4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

A. E.

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.