DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus ABDUL RASHID

The two appeals captioned' above challenge the decisions dated 18‑3‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad, whereby the appellants have been directed to pay to the respondents 180 days salary besides 55% running allowance in lieu of L.P.R.

2. Admittedly, the respondents did not avail of L.P.R. and applied for the payment of 180 days salary. It has been argued that the respondent did not opt for the Revised Leave Rules of 1980. It has not been shown either that Revised Leave Rules were duly notified in Pakistan Railways Gazette or that they were got noted down by the respondents. Rules revised by some competent authority of the appellant, so could come to the knowledge of the respondents if they had been published in Pakistan Railways Gazette or were separately brought to the notice of the respondent. Apart from it, it is the duty of the employer to invite options, where giving of the same is necessary according to the rules. No evidence has been pointed out that it was done by the appellants. So, the respondents were not debarred from claiming salary for 180 days in lieu of L.P.R

3. The other point argued is that the grievance notice and the grievance petition of both the respondents were time‑barred. The line of argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that within three months of the passing of retirement orders grievance notice should have been given. The argument is without force. Period of limitation starts from the date of accrual of cause of grievance. The respondents did not challenge the orders of retirement, so time did not start from the date of retirement. Time could start from the date of refusal. There is no evidence when the respondents were refused salary for 180 days.

4. The last point argued is that since the respondents were not in service at the time when they brought the grievance petitions, the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction. No doubt it has been held in 1985 PLC 1053 but the said ruling stands challenged before the Supreme Court and thus has not yet gained finality.

5. As a result, the grievance petitions are ordered to be returned to the respondents with the direction that if the Supreme Court holds that the persons not in service on the date they brought the grievance petitions are covered by the definition of workman given in section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the appeals would stand dismissed and the impugned decisions passed by the learned lower Court upheld.

A.E./224/Lb.P

Orders accordingly.