PAKISTAN RAILWAYS Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE , Nemo
This appeal by special leave arose from a dispute regarding the entitlement of two Special Ticket Examiners employed by Pakistan Railways to claim daily allowance while residing at Multan, despite their official postings being at Dera Ghazi Khan and Leiah. The employees had been permitted to stay at Multan due to accommodation shortages at their stations of posting. After the Labour Court dismissed their grievance petitions filed under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal allowed their appeals, granting the allowance. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision. The Supreme Court examined the Pakistan Railways Establishment Code, specifically Rules 202, 203, and 221. The Court held that as members of the 'running staff' receiving running allowance, the respondents were precluded from claiming daily allowance under Rule 221, which provides running allowance in substitution of travelling allowance. Furthermore, the Court determined that because the respondents' headquarters were effectively shifted to Multan at their own request, they failed to meet the criteria for daily allowance under Rule 203. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Labour Court's order.
- Are railway servants who are members of the running staff entitled to claim daily allowance in addition to running allowance?
- Does a railway servant who resides at a location other than their official station of posting at their own request qualify for daily allowance under the Pakistan Railways Establishment Code?
- Can a railway servant claim daily allowance for a period during which their headquarters were effectively shifted to their place of residence?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
- Rule 202, Pakistan Railways Establishment Code, Vol. 1
- Rule 203, Pakistan Railways Establishment Code, Vol. 1
- Rule 221, Pakistan Railways Establishment Code, Vol. 1
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑ This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 5‑5‑1987 of the Lahore High Court whereby the Constitutional petition of the appellant calling in question the legality of the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal was dismissed.
2. Respondents Nos.3 and 4 were serving in the Pakistan Railways as Special Ticket Examiners. Respondent No.3 was posted at Dera Ghazi Khan while respondent No.4 was posted at Leiah. However, on account of non -availability of accommodation at their respective stations, they were permitted to stay at Multan on their own request. They claimed daily allowance for the period of their stay at Multan. The appellant rejected their claim. They filed separate grievance petitions under section . 25‑A, Industrial Relation Ordinance, before the Labour Court at Multan. The Labour Court dismissed their petitions. They then preferred appeals before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The learned Tribunal accepted their appeals and directed the appellant to pay the daily allowance to them for the period they had stayed at Multan. The appellant filed a Constitutional petition in the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal but without success. It has now come in appeal to this Court.
3. The relevant provisions having a bearing on the entitlement or otherwise of daily allowance of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are contained in Rules 202, 203 and 221, Pakistan Railways Establishment Code, Vol. 1. These rules read as follows:‑‑
"202. Different kinds of Travelling Allowance.‑‑ The following are the different kinds of travelling allowance:‑‑
(1). Daily Allowance.
(2). Milage allowance.
(3). Permanent or consolidated travelling allowance.
(4) Conveyance allowance.
(5). Actual cost of travelling. .
203. Daily Allowance. ‑‑Daily allowance may be drawn by a railway servant who is not in receipt of a permanent travelling allowance, on any day on which he proceeds on tour beyond the radius of five miles from his headquarters or returns to his headquarters from a similar distance.
221. Railway servants performing duties directly connected with the charge of moving trains are not entitled to travelling allowance under the rules in this section but to running allowance under rules specially framed by the General Manager."
A perusal of rule 202 would show that `daily allowance' is a kind of travelling allowance. Rule 221 states that Railway servants performing duties directly connected with the charge of moving trains are not entitled to travelling allowance but to running allowance in accordance with rules to be framed by the General Manager. Admittedly, respondents Nos.3 and 4 were members of the running staff and were receiving running allowance. They could not, therefore, claim daily allowance in addition to the running allowance which as would appear from rule 221 is allowed in substitution of the former.
4. The other rule that needs to be noticed is rule 203. It states that daily allowance may be drawn by a railway servant who is not in receipt of a permanent travelling allowance, on any day on which he proceeds on tour beyond a radius of five miles from his headquarters or returns to his headquarters from a similar distance. Now, admittedly, respondents Nos.3 and 4 were permitted to stay at Multan at their own request as accommodation was not available at their stations of postings. Quite obviously their headquarters stood temporarily shifted to Multan. Consequently, they were not entitled to any daily allowance while staying at Multan. For the reasons stated above, we accept this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court as well as the learned Tribunal and restore that of the Labour Court. There will be no order as to costs.
A.A./P‑195/S Appeal accepted.