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‑444 of 1985, decided on 25th June, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Pakistan Railway Personnel Manual, Vol. 1, S.1(b)(ii)‑ Grievance petition‑‑Claim of daily allowance, house rent and conveyance allowance‑‑Entitlement of claimant, S.T.E., of Railway‑‑ Dearness Allowance is paid where 55 running allowance and not mileage allowance is paid‑‑Case having not been properly handled before Labour Court on behalf of establishment and proper evidence being not produced, case was remanded to Labour Court with direction that after affording last opportunity to parties for production of proper evidence, same be re‑decided.
This is an appeal challenging the decision of the learned Labour Court No.9, Multan, dated 29‑6‑1985 whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for the grant of daily allowance at Rs.35 per day for the period from 7‑4‑1977 to 21‑7‑1978 and 26‑6‑1978 to 23‑8‑1982 and for the recovery of house rent and conveyance allowance was accepted as prayed for.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, making reference to section 1 (b) sub‑clause (it) of Personnel Manual Volume I appearing at page 441 that the provisions made therein are only for the guards who have to relieve the station staff but the respondent was an S.T.E. who neither relieved nor could relieve by any station staff, and had been performing the same duties of running staff at Multan which he had to perform at Leiah, Therefore, he was not entitled to daily allowance. It is also mentioned in the rules referred to above that 55 running allowance and daily allowance are paid to the Guards who are to relieve the stationary staff. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent was paid mileage allowance and not 55 running allowance nor he was called to Multan to relieve any station staff, therefore, he is not entitled to daily allowance. .
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has produced a copy of the judgment of this Court in which it was held that by anology, the rule referred to above was applicable. In that case, it was not urged that only Guards are qualified to relieve stationary staff and not the S.T.Es. There is no evidence nor any rule has been shown to the effect that only Guards can be deputed to relieve stationary staff. This much is clear that according to the rule, referred to above daily A allowance is paid where 55 running allowance and not mileage allowance is paid. It appears that the case has not been properly handled before the learned lower Court on the appellants side, therefore, the relevant evidence and rules could not come on the record. It, therefore, seems proper to allow the parties to produce evidence on the disputed points before finally deciding the case. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned order, the case is remanded with the direction that after allowing last opportunity to the parties, to produce evidence, if any, and the rules and law. the case be re‑decided.
A. A.
Case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer