RAFAQATULLAH Versus THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS KARACHI DIVISION KARACHI

DECISION

The appellant is an employee of the Railways as a dresser and when attached to the Hassan Hospital Cantt. Area, was given residential accommodation being Quarter No. 9/115 in the Railway Colony. In due course he was transferred to the Pipri Marshalling Yard Dispensary and was called upon to vacate the quarter occupied by him, and shift to the quarter meant for him at Pipri. As this did not suit the appellant, he had sent a grievance notice and thereafter filed a petition before the Labour Court in May, 1987.

2. Challenge was raised to the maintainability of the petition on the ground of in competency due to the bar under section 1(2)(e) of the I.R.O. and of the provisions of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. It was also urged that there being provision for his stay at Pipri there was no justification at all for him to keep or occupying the aforesaid quarter.

3. The appellant was his own witness before the Labour Court and one Dr. Abdul Hameed appeared on behalf of the respondent.

4. The learned Labour Court in view of the decision in Senior Medical Officer (Adorn.), Pakistan Railways Hassan Hospital, Karachi Cantt. v. Muhammad Mushtaq reported in 1983 PLC 918 and Mrs. Nasim Rafique v, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another, reported in 1984 PLC 1679 and also because the petitioner had no right guaranteed under any law award or settlement dismissed the petition resulting in this appeal.

5. The appellant could not be heard to say that once the residential quarter was made available to him while posted at Karachi Cantt. it should remain in his possession when posted elsewhere. A demand like this will be nothing short of attractions. Demonstrably the claim is not based on any of the ingredients specified in section 25‑A of the I.R.O.

6. As the matters stand, there is not even a share of legitimacy about the claim and that is enough to dispose of the appeal. It is therefore not necessary to go into the question whether the bar under section 1(2r)(e), I.R.O. will be attracted in the circumstances of the case.

7. The fact that the children are studying in Cantt. School, will be a matter for the consideration of the Railway Authorities but will have no bearing on the merits of the case. All that I need say in that context is that a quarter will be made available to him at Pipri before his vacating the quarter in dispute, so that the family does not face any hardship.

In the result the appeal stands dismissed.

A.A./2150/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.