Find a Lawyer

Petition No‑260 of 1985, decided on 2nd February, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition ‑‑Impleading as party‑‑Relief not sought from Labour Court‑‑Condition of service of grievance notice not applicable‑‑Railway employees in grievance petition claiming confirmation‑‑Applicants praying for being allowed to be impleaded as party‑‑Matter essentially involving seniority dispute‑‑Plea that in absence of service of grievance notice applicants could not be allowed to be impleaded‑‑Plea, in circumstances, repelled and application allowed.

Muhammad Anwar Lodhi for Petitioners.

Gulzar Ahmad Alvi for Respondents.

This order shall dispose of an application for implication as a party to the proceedings titled above, moved by Inamuddin and Muhammad Suleman, Ticket Collectors, Pakistan Railways, Multan, on 5‑1‑1986.

2. The facts, in the background, revolve around confirmation as Ticket Collectors, sought by Muhammad Nasim etc., hereinafter to be called the petitioners, by means of an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, instituted in this Court on 5‑8‑1985 against the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways and the Divisional Personnel Officer, Pakistan Railways, Multan, hereinafter to be called the respondents. The petitioners' contention is that they were appointed against substantive posts of Ticket Collector Grade‑I on 15‑7‑1971, 4‑12‑1967, 2‑6‑1969, 22‑7‑1968, 18‑2‑1972, 13‑11‑1969, and 2‑6‑1969, respectively. Before their regular appointment as Ticket Collectors, the petitioners qualified T.7‑B course from the Walton Training School, Lahore. In accordance with the rules and award of the Central Industrial Court, announced on 13‑10‑1966, they were entitled to confirmation since the dates, detailed above against each of them. The respondents have, in utter disregard of the law and the Award of the Central Industrial Court, have shown them as temporary in the seniority list delivered on 17‑9‑1978. The management issued a provisional confirmation list of the petitioners on 9‑6‑1978. It is also not sustainable in the eye of law and the said Award. The petitioners, in the given situation, prayed for confirmation from the dates of their substantive appointment.

3. The proceedings were at the initial stage when Inamuddin and Muhammad Suleman, hereinafter to be called the applicants came forward for implication as a party to the proceedings. According to them, the relief sought h y the petitioners touches the point of seniority which is sub judice in two cases, namely, Ahmad Yar, etc. v. Divisional Superin tendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan, and Wazir Muhammad, etc. v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan, etc. pending already in this Court. The applicants are party to those proceedings. On the basis of these two suits the applicants have a right to defend their position in this case as well as such they may be brought on the record accordingly.

4. The respondents did not oppose this request. The petitioners, on the other hand, opposed it hotly by alleging that the movement in the Labour Court is conditioned with the service of a grievance notice under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. A person who has not given the said notice cannot come for any relief. In the instant case, the applicants have not served any grievance notice on the management therefore, they cannot come in any manner whatsoever. The petitioners further state that no confirmation is due to the applicants, therefore, the question of their involvement in this case does not arise. The petitioners, however, admitted the pendency of two seniority cases pointed out by the applicants and their presence in the list of parries given therein.

5. With a view to settle the dispute, I have gone through the record and heard the arguments of all the parties. The petitioners do not deny the pendency of two cases namely, Ahmad Yar, etc. v. D.S. Railway, etc. and Wazir Muhammad, etc. v. D.S. Railway, etc. about seniority. I have also perused both of these cases and I am of the view that seniority is very much in dispute among the parties in both of these cases. It is an admitted fact that the applicants are party to the proceedings being carried in each of them. The seniority being very much material for confirmation justifies the presence of the applicants in this case as well. Any order passed by this Court in favour of the petitioners will relate to the applicants directly. In the given situation, my stand is that the relief must be granted. My finding finds further support from the very denial of confirmation of the applicants by the petitioners. According to them, the applicants cannot claim the confirmation. This very denial gives a clue to the dispute, which as such, invites the presence of the applicants.

6. The petitioners have also taken the plea of grievance notice. Factually, it is true that the applicants have not given any grievance notice but that does not come into their way to Labour Court. Section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is applicable when some relief has been sought from the Labour Court. In case of relief, service of notice prior to movement in Labour Court becomes necessary but when there is no request for any relief, then notice is not essential. By way of application for implication as a party to the proceedings, the person moving the application does not seek any relief. He simply defends his position either against the petitioner or both against the petitioner and the respondent. Moreover, person requesting for implication, in his position as respondent cannot seek help of the Court in execution in case his claim is established. Similarly, in the instant case, applicants have not sought any relief from this Court. They simply want to defend their position by bringing certain facts or law in the lime light. For that matter it is nut necessary for them to give a grievance notice.

7. With this view of the matter, the application succeeds which is, as such, hereby accepted as prayed for.

A. E.

Application accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.