DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus MANZOOR HUSSAIN
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑ This order disposes of the four petitions all seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 30th of May, 1982 whereby the Constitutional Petitions filed by the petitioner, were dismissed in limine.
2. The contesting respondents in each of these petitions were employees of the petitioner. They were prosecuted criminally and arrested. Following their arrest and pending the criminal cases they were placed under suspension. They approached the Labour Court which directed their re‑instatement. The appellate Court maintained that order. Subsequently, the respondents moved the authority under the Payment of Wages Act for payment to them of the pay for the period of suspension. The Authority following the decision of the Appellate Labour Tribunal given in the case of Ehsan‑ul‑Haque Khan v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore N L R 1979 Tr.C. Pb. 352 held them en‑titled to full pay in addition to the subsistence allowance paid to them. This order has not been interfered with by the impugned order.
3. Ch. Muhammad Aslam Chattha, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that in the first place, for the period of suspension, pay in addition to the subsistence allowance which was to the extent of half the rate of the pay, could not be allowed under the rules. If at all full pay had to be allowed, the subsistence allowance had to be adjusted in the final payment. In the second place, it is contended, that a determination as to whether the employees were entitled to full pay or not, could take place only by the competent authority at a stage when their criminal trial had come to an end, so as to facilitate the determination of the question as to the nature and extent of their implication in the crime. The reference to the decision of the Appellate Tribunal case is objected to on the ground that it was a case where the criminal trial had come to an end, the prosecution of the employee was held to be mala fide and unjustified and he had been honourably acquitted.
4. After hearing the learned counsel, we find that in fact a question of law of general application arises, "whether a decisions with regard to the entitlement for the suspension period .could prematurely be taken and whether subsistence allowance is not required to be adjusted in pay if it is released in favour of the employee".
5. Leave to appeal is granted accordingly.
6. M.I/D‑26/S Leave granted.