1988 PLP 821 (PLC(CS))

The revisions captioned above emerge from the decisions dated 3‑1‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan in its appellate jurisdiction, whereby the appeals brought by the petitioner against the decision dated 25‑5‑1987 recorded by the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages :pct, Multan were dismissed.

2. So far as the revision titled as "Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways Multan v. Zahid Hussain" mentioned above is concerned, none has appeared for Zahid Hussain. Learned counsel for the remaining respondents has informed that Zahid Hussain has expired during the pendency of the appeal. However, he is not in a position to give the correct date of his death. The learned lower Court, therefore, as the case is being remanded alongwith the other two cases, would see if the legal .representatives of the deceased can be brought on the record and if any legal representative is brought on the record, the appeal will be decided in his presence.

3. The facts are that the respondents who are Special Ticket Examiners claim 75$ mileage allowance on .account of doing the work of census of passengers. They base their claim upon an award. Neither any certified copy of the award nor the notification in which the award was published has been brought on the record by either party. The case of the petitioner is that by the .Award, the Special Ticket‑Examiners were brought at par with the running staff while performing the duty of census and since at the time they claimed running allowance, the running staff was being paid that allowance at 75$ of their pay, therefore, under the award mileage allowance was paid to the respondents accordingly, but in the meantime while revising the scales the rate of mileage allowance for the running staff was reduced to 55$, therefore, the respondents were paid mileage allowance accordingly and their claim at 75$ is not justified. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that by the award they were allowed mileage allowance at 75$, therefore, in the subsistence of the award the rate of mileage allowance could not be reduced. Unless the award is seen, no definite opinion can be expressed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought on the revisional file a photostat copy of the award but since it is not certified and the learned counsel for the respondents is not prepared to accept its correctness, the said copy cannot be made the basis of any final order. The learned Authority or the lower appellate Court before whom the order of the Authority was challenged should have directed the parties to bring on the record the award which was the mainstay of the case of both the parties. In these circumstances, there is no other alternative but to remand the cases to the learned lower appellate Court.

4. Accordingly, the revisions are accepted and setting aside the orders of the learned lower appellate Court, the appeals are remanded to it for decision after the petitioner brings on the record original or duly certified copy of the award. A.E./525/Lb.P Case remanded.