Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. MN‑652 of 1984, decided on 22nd October, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A a, 38(3)‑‑Award providing Railway Guards Grade‑III vision failed to be posted as Conductor Guard‑‑Post of Conductor Guard existing‑‑Petitioner with vision B‑1 i.e. below A.3 refused posting‑ Grievance petition on basis of Award, in circumstances, held, rightly accepted by Labour Court for posting as Conductor Guard.
Gulzar Ahmad Alvi for Appellants.
Date of hearing: 13th October, 1985.
Respondent in Person.
The decision, dated 29‑9‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for direction to the appellant to post the respondent as Special Ticket Examiner or Conductor, Guard was accepted with back benefits.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that vision test for Conductor Guard being A.1 to A.3 and whereas the vision of the respondent is B‑1, he is not entitled to be posted as Conductor Guard. He has, however, conceded that according to rules, Guards, Grade‑III can be posted as Conductor Guards if vision is not below A‑3. The respondent based his claim on award Exh. P.3 which says that vision failed Guards Grade‑III should be posted as Conductor Guard. A demand can be raised for the creation of a right that has not been guaranteed by any law or rules. Since according to rules, Guards Grade‑III can be posted as Conductor Guards if their vision is not below A.3, that is why the award was made to the effect that all vision failed Guard Grade‑III may be posted as Conductor Guards. The intention of the award is clear that Guards Grade‑III having vision below A.3 should be appointed as Conductor Guards. If it is held that the intention of the award is that only those Guards Grade‑III can be posted as Conductor Guards whose vision is not below A.3, the award becomes redundant. So, under the award, the respondent is entitled to be posted as Conductor Guard even though his vision is below A.3. The finding of the learned lower Court to the effect that there existed four vacancies of Conductor Guards at the relevant time has not been challenged during arguments. Since there were available posts of Conductor Guards at the time when it was reported that vision of the respondent had failed, he should have been posted against one such vacancy. So, the grievance petition of the respondent has been rightly accepted by the learned lower Court.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
A.E.
Appeal dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer