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. SUK‑181 of 1983, decided on 22nd July, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 2(xxviii) & 25‑A‑‑'Workman' ‑‑Requirement of‑‑Stationmaster drawing pay below Rs.800 per month, held. is within definition of workman, irrespective of industries for managing and administering work at station of appointment.
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual, Chap. No. III, r.15‑D‑‑Grievance petition for grant of Travelling Allowance‑ Requirement of law is that workman should have secured and guaranteed right in respect of Travelling Allowance or Daily Allowance‑‑Claim of employee about travelling allowance, held, was not a secured right‑‑Such right could only be settled according to r.15‑D, Personnel Manual, Chap. No.1II‑‑Grievance petition was, therefore, misconceived and dismissed in circumstances.
Manazar Alam for Appellant. Shabbir Ahmad Awan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th April, 1985.
The instant appeal arises out of the order, dated 7‑4‑1983, passed by the Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur.
2. The facts which are given by the appellant in the grievance application under section 25‑A, I.R.O, 1969, are that he was working as a stationmaster on relief list with Head Office at Sukkur and was being directed to work on various stations as per orders of the respondent No. 3. Since he was working on short terms vacancies beyond the radius of ten miles, as per rules, he was entitled to travelling allowance at the rate of Rs.20 per day. He claims that for the month of March, 1981 to July, 1981 he was not paid the travelling allowances. However, the T.A. bills were verified by respondent No. s and were approved by respondent No. 2, but they were not passed and he was deprived of the amount of the T.A. He, therefore, filed the grievance application. The respondents in their reply statement Exh. 2 have briefly stated that the appellant was working as short term vacancy of relief giving stationmaster which was lying vacant for more than one year. That no T.A. is allowed to relieving staff appointed against permanent vacant post for more than six weeks as per rule 15‑D of the Personnel Manual Chapter No. III. That the appellant was working against permanent vacant post of relief stationmaster at Railway Station Daur. That no application was received from the appellant in this behalf. That the claim of the appellant is not legal and that the Travelling Allowance cannot be claimed as a matter of right as it is a compensatory allowance. That the Head Office of the appellant was at Daur and not at Sukkur as claimed by the appellant
3. The Advocates were heard on both the sides. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the stationmaster was a workman according to the definition of sub clause (xxviii) of section 2, I.R.O., 1969, which is as under:‑
"(xxviii) 'Worker' and 'Workman' means any person not falling within the definition of employer who is employed (including employment (as a supervisor as an apprentice) in an establishment or industry for hire or reward either directly or through a contractor whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any preceding under this Ordinance in relation to an industrial dispute includes a person who has been dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid off or otherwise removed from employment in connection with or as a consequences of that .dispute or whose dismissal, discharge, retrenchment, lay‑off, or removal has led to that dispute but does not include any person‑‑
(a) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(b) who being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding rupees eight hundred per mensem or performs, either because of the nature of duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in his, functions mainly of managerial nature."
4. It is contended by the learned counsel of the appellant that clause (b) of the definition applies to the stationmaster whose pay is below Rs.800 per month and as such he is a workman. A Notification is produced that the stationmaster is working on N.P.S. No.11 and he draws Rs.550 per month as such. He, therefore, becomes within the definition of workman irrespective of his duties as stationmaster who manages and administers the work at the, station. I agree with the counsel for the appellant.
5. However, he could claim travelling allowance or not was a matter of dispute between the parties and the working of section 25‑A, I.R.0. 1969, is that he should have secured and guaranteed right in respect of Travelling Allowance or Daily Allowance. This point is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent and they say that the Travelling Allowance is a matter according to rules and objections could have been raised by the appellant according to the rules provided in the manual. His main head office was at station Daur and as such he could not claim T.A. Since T.A. is not a secured right, the application under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is misconceived. I accordingly dismiss the appeal.
A.A.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer