AFTAB AHMAD SIDDIQI Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 12‑7‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. III at Karachi who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case of the appellant were that as he was working as Driver Instructor in the Diesel Training School Railways at Karachi Cantonment and was directed to report at M.E.T. Centre, Mughalpura, Lahore for the training of Ari Brake System and thereafter he was again directed to report to Karachi Cantt. Headquarters, but, was not paid T.A. bills. The appellant claimed that on 9‑10‑1983 he was again sent to Mogha1pura and came back to Headquarter on 19‑10‑1985 and then again was directed to report at Head Office M.P. Lahore under letter, dated 30‑11‑1983 and after completion of the training, he again came back to Karachi on 29‑12‑1983 but, in these cases also, he was not paid his T.A. bills. The appellant claimed that according to the rules, running staff was entitled to receive extra payments for working on Fridays and thus, he had suffered heavy financial losses. The appellant claimed that being aggrieved, he had served upon the respondent Railways his grievance notice for payment of Rs. 2,146 as TA and Rs. 806as extra payments for Fridays and Gazetted Holidays, but, as it was not redressed therefore, he submitted his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.

3. The respondent Railways resisted the petition on the legal ground that under provisions of section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, the appellant was not entitled to claim an amount of T.A. etc. As there is a separate forum to claim deducted wages and or delayed wages, hence his petition was not legally maintainable' and was liable to be dismissed.

4. I have heard the appellant in person and Mr. Latif Saghar, the learned Advocate for the respondent Railways and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case as well as the written arguments submitted on behalf of both the parties. At the very outset, I would observe here that though the appellant had filed an affidavit‑in‑evidence, but, did not produce himself for cross‑examination by the respondent Railways; therefore, the learned Labour Court was quite right in closing his side. Thus, the appellant had no evidence in support of his claim. The respondent, namely, Pakistan Railways in view of their legal objections, did not adduce any evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the claim of TA and the benefits is not a guaranteed or secured right under the provisions of section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. In view of this position, I would hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly passed the impugned order.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would maintain impugned order and would accordingly dismiss the present appeal.

A.E./1280/Lb. S.

Appeal dismissed.