AHMED KHAN Versus SIND LABOUR COURT No. 5

ORDER

1. These two petitions Nos. S‑102/87 and S‑103/87 are being disposed of by this common order as they raise common questions of law and facts.

2. The petitioners who were employees of East Pakistan Railways migrated to Pakistan after 15‑12‑1971 after the fall of East Pakistan. Thereafter, the petitioners, Ahmed Khan and Muhammad Naimatullah waited at Karachi till 22‑9‑1974 and 12‑4‑1975 respectively whercafter they were allowed to resume their duties at Lahore and Islamabad respectively. Petitioners Ahmed Khan and Muhammad Naimatullah then retired from service on 1‑3‑1.977 and 28‑11‑1976 respectively. Thereafter, they entered into correspondence with the Office of Divisional Superintendent, Railways at Karachi in respect of their dues during the waiting period from 16‑12‑1971 until resumption of their duties respectively. However, as the petitioners had retired when they were serving under the Head Office at Lahore, they finally received replies from the office of the D.S. Railways Lahore, informing them that their request in respect of dues for the waiting period could not be accepted. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners preferred their respective claims before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act at! Karachi which were allowed by the same on 29‑10‑1985. Aggrieved by such orders, the respondent No. 2 preferred appeals before the learned Fifth Sind in Labour Court at Karachi which were allowed by a common order, dated 22‑8‑1987 and it was held that the orders passed by the Authority under the. Payment of Wages Act were without jurisdiction and consequently, they were set aside. The present petitions have arisen out of this order.

3. The contention of Mr. Muhammad Ahmad learned counsel for the petitioners is, that, since the petitioners had claimed wages for the period which they spent at Karachi, therefore, their claim before the Authority at Karachi was competent. Consequently, according to the petitioners, the order passed by the learned Labour Court was without lawful authority.

4. The contention raised by the counsel is completely devoid of force. Admittedly, petitioner Ahned Khan worked under D.S. Railways, at Lahore and petitioner Muhammad Naimatullah worked at Rawalpindi, from where they ultimately retired from the service. Not only that but various representations made by the petitioners were directed to the Head Office at Lahore which ultimately informed them that their request had been turned down. Under the circumstances, the cause of action accrued to petitioner Ahmed Khan at Lahore and Muhammad Naimatullah either at Rawalpindi or at Lahore. No cause of action accrued to them at Karcahi. Under the circumstances, I do not find the order passed by the learned Labour Court is open to exception and these petitions are, therefore, dismissed in limine.

5. S.O./A‑304/K ? 4 ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed.