BHAI KHAN Versus THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 1‑11‑1984, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VII Sukkur, who had dismissed the petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working in the capacity of Station plaster, posted on Relief List under the control of respondent at Sukkur and was being directed to work as and when required where there was need. It was claimed by the appellant that on 28‑10‑1979, the respondent had imposed illegal penalty of W.I.P. for one year upon him i.e. with holding annual increment permanently for one year upon the appellant that this punishment was not provided in the Efficiency Discipline Rules 1975 and the implementation of this punishment had caused heavy financial loss to the appellant continuously. Further, the case of the appellant was that by virtue of this punishment the appellant will be in concurrence loss till his entire life period, therefore, being aggrieved with this action of the respondent, he had submitted grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.

3. The respondent resisted the petition on the ground that as the appellant was not a workman, therefore, his petition was not maintainable as even no right guaranteed or secured by him had been infringed. On merits, it was the case of the respondent that from 27‑12‑1978 to 23‑10‑1979, the appellant had remained absent without sanction of leave, therefore, he was awarded punishment of W.I.P. for one year. Further, that the departmental appeal of the appellant was time‑barred therefore, it was also rejected.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavit‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. The learned Labour Court therefore had dismissed the petition, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Manzar Alam, the learned Advocate for appellant and Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan, the learned Advocate for the respondent Railways and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position on behalf of the appellant that the punishment of W.I.P. for one year was awarded to him on the charge of having remained absent from 27‑12‑1978 to 23‑12‑1979 and that on 22‑6‑1983 his departmental appeal was also rejected. Admittedly the appellant was Assistant Station Master when the punishment was awarded to him and was working in the Divisional Office at Sukkur. Further, it is also an admitted position that on 28‑5‑1982, the appellant was promoted as Station Master. It is an established fact that the grievance notice and the grievance petition were hopelessly time‑barred. No specific and detail had been submitted for this delay, therefore, on this point the grievance petition is liable to be dismissed. As regards the merits, in view of the admitted guilt of the appellant, the punishment awarded to him was quite correct, hence, it is maintained. There is nothing wrong with the impugned order.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The appeal is with t accordingly dismissed.

S.Q./1029/Lb.S.

Appeal dismissed.