PAKISTAN RAILWAYS Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C.R. Aslam

This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, on behalf of Pakistan Railways, is directed against the judgments dated 29‑6‑1987 and 29‑9‑1987, rendered respectively by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2 Lahore and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore whereby the private respondents herein were held entitled to get "washing allowance" (by both the Tribunals) and to the issuance of `overall drills' (by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal). It has arisen in the background that Siraj Din and 57 others, hereinafter referred to as private respondents, are employed as Furnacemen/Tube‑Cleaners in the Foundary Shop/Machine Shop under the Works Manager Signals, Pakistan Railways, Lahore. They served a grievance notice on the respondent‑Railways disputing the withholding of `overall drills' (uniforms) to them as also the stoppage of payment of washing allowance w.e.f. 19‑3‑1984. Their case was that they had been receiving the amenities afore referred in the past and withholding of the same, as above, was illegal. On failure to obtain a favourable response from the petitioner‑Railways, they filed a grievance petition under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. They prayed for the issuance of appropriate directions to all concerned to issue `overall drills' to them, for the revival of washing allowance and the refund of the amounts, recovered from them in the garb of over‑payment, in that behalf. Their grievance petition was opposed by the petitioner‑Railways by pleading that Furnacemen are entitled to get Apron‑canvass, as provided in the Dress Regulation No. 60. As the private, respondents are not entitled to get `overall drills', the refusal to supply the same to them was lawful. The private respondents were getting `washing allowance' from the Pakistan‑Railways when they were drawing pay in Basic Pay Scales Nos. 1, 2. 3 and 4. The scales were revised fan 1979 and the Furnacemen were given Basic Scale No. 5, with the result that the became disentitled to `washing allowance' thereafter. As the washing allowance had been inadvertently paid to the private respondents up to 1984 and as this irregularity was detected by Audit, the overpaid amounts have been recovered from them. The claim of private respondents, in so far as it related to the `washing allowance', was accepted by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore whereas their such claim for the supply of `overall drills' was disallowed by him vide judgment dated 29‑6‑1987. Both the parties filed separate appeals against this judgment before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and the appeals of the petitioner‑Railways and the private respondents were registered there under Appeals Nos. LHR‑248/87 Punjab and LHR‑251/87‑Punjab, respectively. The appeal of the petitioner Railways was dismissed whereas that of the private respondents was allowed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore through its consolidated judgment dated 29‑.9‑1987. Hence this petition with the following prayer:‑

"It is accordingly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept the writ petition with costs, and declare the impugned judgments passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in directing the payment of Washing Allowance and supply of Overall Drills to the respondents, as without lawful authority and of no legal effect."

2. Before addressing any arguments on merits, Chaudhry Fazal‑e -Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner‑Railways stated that the matter can be disposed of by this Court without entering into the merits of the petition as the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore is in error of jurisdiction in not allowing any opportunity to the petitioner‑Railways to refer to the relevant regulation appearing in the Dress Regulation Book of 1960 in support of its case that the private respondents were not entitled to the supply of `overall drills' and so does its observation to the effect that the said Dress Regulation Book of 1960 or any copy of the relevant provision contained therein has not been produced before both the Courts, which stood in its way in arriving at the conclusion that such supply of overall drills to the private respondents' ... for 15 long years is prohibited.' He has referred to Muhammad Sarwar v. The State PLD 1969 SC 278 and contended that the well‑known adage that a Judge must wear all the laws of the country on the sleeve of his robe, was not considered by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and had the petitioner‑Railways been afforded an opportunity to produce the Dress Regulation Book of 1960 even at the time of the arguments in the case before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, the result of the causes before it would have been different.

2‑A. He has also submitted that the entitlement of respondents Nos. 3 to 60 to both the amenities namely `washing allowance' and `overall drills' has been determined by both the Tribunals without resolving the question whether or not they remained entitled thereto after the revision of National Pay Scales and also without resolving the controversy about the move‑over to Pay Scale No. 5, as alleged by the said respondents and regarding the private respondents holding the posts on account of the revision of National Pay Scales, as alleged by the petitioner‑Railways.

3. The criticism offered by the learned counsel for the petitioner Railways does go to the root of the cause. The case of the private‑respondents was that they were entitled to the reliefs claimed by them from the Labour Tribunals for, among others, the reason that the rules applicable in their case had provided for washing allowance' and `overall drills' at the time when they were in Pay Scale No.4 in the year 1972 as also on their move‑over to Scale No. 5, after exhausting Pay Scale No. 4, because their duty and function did not change when move‑over was, allowed them by the respondent‑Railways. This plea has even been reiterated on behalf of the private‑respondents in their written statement in this case. Mr. C.R. Adam, Advocate did not seriously controvert the pleas raised on behalf of the petitioner‑Railways and was of the view that than rules applicable to the case of the private‑respondents are a complete answer to the criticism offered by the learned counsel for .the petitioner‑Railways. He further argued that he has no objection to the acceptance of this petition and the remand of the case for a fresh decision.

4. During the earlier part of the day, the learned counsel for the parties took some time out to consider the forum to which the case may be remitted for decision. After the tea‑break they made a joint statement to the effect that the case may be remanded to the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal for a decision afresh after providing an opportunity to the parties to refer to the statutory rules applicable in the case and to the material already brought on the record by them.

5. I have perused the material available on the record of this case and considered the same in the context of the criticism offered by the learned counsel for the petitioner‑Railways and the joint statement of the learned counsel for both sides to remit the case to the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore for a fresh decision of the cause/s. Parties are not at variance with each other in the matter of the applicability of the Dress Regulation Book of 1960, to the instant cause. The observation by the Appellate Tribunal in its judgment dated 29‑9‑1987 to the effect that the said Dress Regulation Book of 1960 or any copy of the relevant provision contained in it had not been produced either before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 2, Lahore or before the Appellate Tribunal itself, cannot be treated as a justification/excuse for not applying the same to the case in hand. The Statutory Rules and Regulations had to be considered in the context of this case by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and its failure to do so cannot be countenanced. See Muhammad Sarwar v. The State (PLD 1969 SC 278). As the parties are one on the question of applicability of the Dress Regulation Book of 1960 to the case in hand, its decision vide the impugned judgment dated 29‑9‑1987 is declared to have been passed without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. Resultantly, the petition is allowed and the case is remitted back to the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal for a fresh decision of parties' Appeals Nos. LHR‑248/87‑Punjab and LHR‑251/87‑Punjab, after allowing them an opportunity to refer to the Dress Regulation Book of 1960 as also to the other material brought on the record by them in support of their respective pleas. There shall be no order as to costs.

H.B.T./P‑41/L Petition allowed.