AFTAB AHMAD SIDDIQI Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 5.10.1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. 11 at Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969 ,

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant claimed that his pay be fixed at Rs. 1,268 with effect from 1‑7‑1983, allowing the increment of Rs. 32 and then fixing the same at Rs. 1,300 with effect from 1‑12‑1983. The appellant further claimed that he was working as Railway Driver (DHG) and was posted at Pakistan Railways Diesel Training School, Karachi Cantt. as Driver/Instructor. He further claimed that he had joined Pakistan Railways on 4‑3‑1960 and had started officiating as Driver in the year 1965 and that as injustice was done to him for implementation of National Scale of Pay and revised National Pay Scales and fixation of pay, therefore, he approached the Labour Court for fixation of his pay at Rs.1,330 with effect from 1‑7‑1983 and at Rs. 1,305 with effect from 1‑12‑1983 as had been done by the respondent Railways in the case of another Driver, namely, Hafizullah. He claimed that as his departmental representation was not favourably considered, therefore, after serving a proper Notice of Grievance, he had submitted his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969 before the learned Labour Court.

3. The respondent Railways resisted the petition mainly on the legal ground that the grievance petition of the appellant was outside the scope and ambit of the provisions of section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1909, and it was hit by the A principles of res judicata as admittedly another application under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, was pending before the learned Labour Court, hence, the present application was also barred by Limitation.

4. I have heard the appellant in person and Mr. Latif Saghar, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent Railways and perused the record and proceedings of the case as well as the written arguments submitted by both the parties. At the very outset, I would hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly passed the impugned order and had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant. It is an admitted fact that the cause of action accrued to the appellant on 1‑7‑1983 when the fixation of pay was announced and so the appellant had claimed increment with effect from 1‑12‑1983, but, the grievance petition was B filed by him on 7‑4‑1984, that is much after expiry of the prescribed period under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. It is also an admitted position that the appellant had also filed another application under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969 for the fixation of his pay. In view of this admitted position on record, I see no force in any of the contentions of the appellant and I would hold that his present application was not I maintainable and was rightly dismissed.

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

A.E./1279/LB. S. ???????

Appeal dismissed.