Find a Lawyer

Case No. 7(141) of 1985, decided on 10th February, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Railway employee office‑bearer of Trade Union making petition before National Industrial Relations Commission‑‑Dispute relating to ejectment from residential quarter‑‑Allegation of unfair labour practice‑‑No evidence in support of allegation‑‑Residential quarter already allotted on merit and priority bases to other employee by competent authority‑‑Petition, in circumstances, was dismissed.

Khalid Mahmood Malik for Petitioner. Fazal‑i‑Hussain for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5.

Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 in person.

This application under section 25‑A of the IRO has been submitted' by Farrakh Alam against the General Manager Pakistan Railways Headquarters Office, Lahore and 6 others. The petitioner who is the Vice‑President of the STEs union of United Union of Pakistan Railways Workers has stated that the respondent No. 1 had summoned the petitioner in his office and demanded him to leave the union activities or he shall have to face dire consequences. This allegation of unfair labour practice to my mind is absolutely untenable on the ground that the petitioner has neither submitted any list of witnesses or has h mentioned the time and date when he was summoned by the respondent No. 1 who happens to be the General Manager Pakistan Railways. It is also improbable that the General Manager would call STE and threaten him in that manner.

2. The petitioner hash actually grievance in respect of a quarter No. 303‑A List Road, Lahore which was allotted in the name of Nasreen Kausar who had surrendered the same in favour of the petitioner and had given part possession to the petitioner on 9‑10‑1984 and since then both of them are living jointly in the said quarter. The petitioner then applied for joint allotment to the department and had also requested for deduction of rent from his pay. The Divisional Engineer of D.S. Office recommended this application and stay order was also given by the Railway Magistrate under the law not to eject the petitioner pending decision on his application which is still pending.

3. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 illegally forged orders of cancellation of quarter from the name of Mrs. Nasreen Kausar and allotted the same in the name of respondents Nos. 6 and 7. The respondents had cancelled the letter of cancellation and allotment, dated 30‑1‑1984 and 24‑4‑1985. The respondent No. 1 retired on 26‑4‑1985. It has been submitted that another bogus letter was issued in favour of the respondents Nos 6 and 7 with the help of respondent No. 5 who allotted the quarter in favour of respondents Nos. 6 and 7. The quarter was allotted in the name of Nasreen Kausar who had surrendered, it in favour of the petitioner. It has been submitted that no notice as required under the law was served upon Nasreen Kausar before cancellation of allotment.

4. The petitioner appeared before the Divisional Engineer who recommended his application and stopped all other proceedings about ejectment. The petitioner alongwith Nasreen Kausar filed a suit for permanent injunction in which a stay order was granted not to disturb the possession of the petitioner. It has also been stated that respondent No. 7 was transferred to Okara on 25‑6‑1985 and was relieved on 4‑7‑1985. Joint allotment was made in favour of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 and that none of the respondents is entitled to that quarter. A notice was served on the respondent on 20‑7‑1985 but no reply was received by him. It was, therefore, prayed that the allotment order, dated 31‑10‑1984 and 30‑4‑1985 made in favour of the respondents Nos. 6 and 7 be declared illegal, void and of no effect.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 submitted that the application was not maintainable as the matter is already subjudice before the civil Court, Lahore. It was denied that any union by the name described by the petitioner is in existence and that quarter No. 303‑A List Road, Lahore was cancelled in the name of Nasreen Kausar as she had absconded from duty. Part possession of the petitioner is, therefore, illegal as the accused allottee Nasreen Kausar had no jurisdiction to sublet or retain any other person without permission of the competent authority nor she could surrender the Railway property in favour of the petitioner or any one else. The petitioner was ejected by observing due process of law.

6. It was stated that the petitioner unauthorisedly occupied the quarter on vacation by Mrs. Nasreer, Kausar and that the competent authority had not allotted the quarter in his favour. In fact the quarter was allotted by the competent authority in favour of Mrs. Tasneem Shaukat and Mr. Shehzad Ahmad TCR, vide letter, dated 30‑4‑1985. The petitioner requested for allotment of this quarter on 9‑10‑1984 and in view of the fact that the quarter had already been allotted vide order, dated 30‑4‑1985 in favour of other Railway Employees, the request was not accepted. It was denied that any stay was granted by any Magistrate in favour of the petitioner. The ejectment action in favour of the petitioner was pended till decision of the competent authority. The request was rejected by the Headquarter, office and ejectment action was taken as per rules on 30‑5‑1985.

7. The cancellation of joint allotment was passed on procedural flaw as approval of the competent authority was in‑advertently obtained. The competent authority however approved the allotment on 25‑4‑1985 and sanction was issued on 30‑4‑1985. The learned counsel pointed out that the respondent No. 1 retired on 26‑4‑1985 but the joint allotment was approved by him on 25‑4‑1985. The petitioner and Mrs. Nasreen Kausar filed a suit in the Court of civil judge, Lahore on 1‑6‑1985 and an interim order was passed on 3‑6‑1985. Ejectment of the petitioner has already been carried out on 30‑5‑1985. Status quo is being observed by the Railway administration since then. However, the petitioner raided the quarter on 9‑8 1985 and broke open sealed locks of the rooms in which his belongings were stored. He violated the stay order and an application for contempt of the Court has been made and the same is still pending. It was further pointed out that the petitioner's turn does not fall for allotment of quarter. A large number of staff belonging to essential categories and having higher priority than the petitioner is still waiting for allotment of quarter. The petitioner's occupation of the quarter was illegal and unauthorised and accordingly he was ejected on 30‑5‑1985. There was no question of any action taken against him on account of trade union activities.

8. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents and the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents produced a copy of the noting from the relevant file in which the SOS/ Confidential had submitted that the request of Mrs. Tabassam Shaukat LRC made vide S. Nos. 1 and 2 is supported by a medical certificate and that it was considered reasonable and the case was submitted that G.M. may kindly be approached to accord necessary approval in this case so that she may be provided better quarter in exchange of her flat. This note was approved by the General Manager. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, stated that the word "approved" was scored out by the General Manager and that it was never approved by him before he was retired and that the order on the basis of this approval was void. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the General Manager may be approached and if he testifies that he had approved this noting he will be out of the Court.

9. On 9‑1‑1986 a letter was addressed to the Ex‑General Manager Pakistan Railways who is now Advisor Railway Foundation, Headquarters Office, Lahore. The Retired General Manager Mr. M.A. Mirza sent a reply on 30th of January, 1986, as under: ‑

"I do not remember having scored out the word "approved". Nor is the slanting stroke through the said word a part of my initials. However, the proposal made in the note in question, recorded by SOS/ Confidential on 25‑4‑1985 was approved by me. Any action taken accordingly was, therefore, in order."

This reply of the Retired General Manager clarifies the entire matter. The petitioner's case falls to the ground. The petition is dismissed and the stay order issued by me on 7‑8‑1985 is recalled.

A.E.

Petition 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.