DATAR DINO Versus ASSISTANT MECHANICAL ENGINEER

DECISION

This is an appeal on behalf of 60 workmen of Locoshed of Pakistan Railways, Rohri, against a common order, dated 27‑11‑1984 passed by Sind Labour Court No. VII Sukkur, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant workmen under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

2. Briefly the facts are that the appellants were employees of Pakistan Railways and were at Loco Shed Rohri. In August, 1982 a deduction of the amount from the salaries from different categories at the rate of Rs.100 from each Driver and Rs.50 from each Shunter/ fireman was allegedly made without any notice, therefore, the appellants resisted this unilateral deductions. As the refund of this deducted amount and an enquiry against this deduction was ordered by Divisional Personnel Officer, Pakistan Railways but could not be done in this behalf, therefore, the appellants made applications under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before the Commissioner for workmen's compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act Sukkur.

Thereafter, respondent No.l. Assistant Mechanical Engineer‑I started issuance of notices on certain charges alleged to have been committed during November, 1978 to November, 1979. As the grievance of the appellant was not redressed therefore they approached the Labour Court.

3. The respondent Railways resisted the petition on several grounds, firstly that if the appellant had already either died or retired from services; or not working in Loco Shed as Driver or Shunter/Fireman and that the recoveries of the amount had been affected on account of excess overtime drawn by the appellants, and that the petition under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act filed by the appellants against the respondent Railways was still pending, therefore, the recovery was postponed. Further, the case of the respondent was that according to the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, no enquiry in the matter was, necessary. The respondent Railways also claimed that the house rent of the appellants has been deducted as all of the appellants were drawing more than Rs.1,000 as wages per month. They claimed that the petition was not for common cause of the appellants and further that a claim by the appellants, for payment has already been filed before the Authority, therefore, the grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R. O., 1969 before, the learned Labour Court was not maintainable.

4. Both the parties filed their affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the Labour Court has dismissed the petition of the appellants, hence this appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Manzar Alam, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent Railways and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan, the learned Advocate for the respondent has contended that a joint application by the employees of different categories having different causes of action is not maintainable and further that both the grievance notice and the grievance petition were time‑barred. It was also pleaded by Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan, the learned Advocate that the appellant have already approached the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for the payments and that application was still pending, therefore, the present petition before the Labour Court was not maintainable. Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan has stressed that the grievance petition of the appellants were misconceived as the appellants had already chosen the proper forum by approaching before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and that thus applications were still pending. Lastly it was argued by Mr.Shabbir Ahmad Awan, the learned Advocate for Pakistan Railways that the present appeal was not legally maintainable and also not entertain-able as it had been signed by Mr. Manzar. Alam, the learned Advocate for the appellants, instead of the appellants themselves. He pointed out that none of the appellants I was also present before the Court. Mr. Awan has also pointed out that two appellants, namely, Akbar Ali and Ammer Hussain were dead before filing of the appeal before this Tribunal, therefore, an f appeal on behalf of the dead person is illegal thus, the memo of appeal was also defective. A Memo of Appeal signed by an Advocate instead of the appellant himself is not maintainable in the eyes of l Law, hence dismissed. Mr. Manzar Alam, the learned Advocate on behalf B of the appellants has legs to stand in rebuttal of the contentions of Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan. I, therefore, hold that there is nothing wrong with the impugned order and it has been rightly passed by f the learned Labour Court.

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

M.Y.H./1015/Lb.S

Appeal dismissed.