DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR Versus BARKATULLAH NASIR

DECISION

These are two cross‑appeals, one bearing No.SUK‑25/86, filed by Pakistan Railways, while the other bearing No.Suk‑36/86, filed by Barkatullah Nasir, the Assistant Station Master, against a common and similar impugned order, dated 24‑12‑1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur, who had allowed the grievance petition of the worker, namely Barkatullah Nasir, but granted him only 30$ back benefits. The Railway Management has come up in appeal against the re‑instatement order while Barkatullah Nasir has filed the present appeal for the grant of full back benefits. I would dispose of both these appeals by this single decision.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Barkatullah Nasir was a permanent employee of Pakistan Railways and at the relevant time, he was placed as Assistant Station Master at Khairpur Railway Station and was placed under suspension on 4‑4‑1983 on a charge of alleged misappropriation of the cash of the Railway. As his reply to the charge‑sheet was not found satisfactory, therefore, neither a departmental enquiry was conducted against him nor an opportunity to defend himself was afforded but on 21‑6‑1983, he was removed from service. Thereafter, the worker submitted a grievance petition before Labour Court.

3. The appellant always resisted the petition on the ground that as the respondent was working in supervisory category and was drawing more than Rs. 1,000 per month as wages, therefore, he was not a workman to maintain grievance petition, secondly, on merits guilt, therefore, no departmental enquiry was necessary, thus his services were dismissed and so also on this point, the respondent could not maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had allowed the grievance petition of Barkatullah Nasir, but allowed him only fifty per cent back benefits, hence, these cross appeals.

5. I have heard Mr. A. J. Mahmood, the learned Advocate on behalf of Pakistan Railways and Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Khan, the learned Advocate for Barkatullah Nasir and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted fact that Barkatullah was getting more than Rs. 1,000 as salary. It was contended by Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Khan that it is the nature of duties which is to be taken into consideration for deciding whether the particular person is a workman or not. He has referred me to a number of authorities, in this behalf, reported in the case 1985 P L C 366, 1984 P L C 493 and 897, 1985 P L C 1969 and also P L D 1975 Lah. 1072. In view of this admitted legal position, I would Barkatullah Nasir as workman fully entitled to maintain his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.

6. As regards the merits of the case, it is an admitted fact on the record that worker, in his reply to the charge‑sheet alleging against his misappropriation of the funds, had never admitted his guilt and very specifically explained his positive procedure being prevailed in Pakistan Railways and the names of other persons to be examined by him in his defence during the domestic enquiry. On the other hand, it was confessed by the witness of Pakistan Railways that the worker was not called during the enquiry as he had already admitted his guilt and the worker was not given any change to adduce his defence during the enquiry.

The witness also admitted that no witness was examined during the enquiry although the worker in his reply to the charge‑sheet had mentioned the names of certain persons. Thus, the enquiry not conducted in accordance with the rules and also the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, therefore, the order of removal from service based on the enquiry report cannot be sustained hence, set aside. As regards the payment of back benefits at the rate 50% to the worker by the learned Labour Court vide its impugned order, I would hold that there is nothing wrong with the impugned order and it has been correctly passed by the learned Labour Court.

7. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. Both these cross‑appeals are accordingly dismissed. The worker, Barkatullah Nasir is hereby directed to be re‑instated in service with fifty pert cent back benefits, forthwith.

M. Y. H. /1014/ Lb. S

Appeals dismissed.