1989 PLP 655 (PLC(CS))

(b) Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual, Vo1.I‑‑ ‑‑‑R.5(d) & (g)‑‑Allowance covered by R.5(d) is mileage allowance calculated at the rate of miles travelled and allowed in lieu of overtime‑‑Railway employees covered by said rule, held, could not claim overtime wages besides mileage allowance‑‑Engine drivers give eight hours duty and since engines are changed alongwith drivers they do not give duty beyond eight hours under normal circumstances‑‑Provisions of Cl.(g) of R.5 become applicable if engine fails and failure is not due to any fault of driver and thus they can claim 1/8of one day's pay for every extra hour spent by them. Ch. Muhammad Akram for Appellants. Agha Taj Muhammad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th January, 1989. The two appeals captioned above emerge from the decisions dated 30‑8‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants of both the appeals were dismissed. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in both the appeals, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. Some of the appellants `are A.C.C. attendants and some are assistant A.C.C. attendants. They travel with air‑conditioned coaches and are paid mileage allowance. There was no limit about the quantum of mileage allowance before 1983 but a notification was issued on 29‑8‑1983, copy of which is Ex.R‑1, according to which, the rate of mileage allowance was increased from Rs.4.50 to. Rs.11.00 per hundred miles. But it was provided that the allowance could be allowed upto a total amount of Rs.1,200 and not beyond that. This actuated the appellants to bring grievance petitions. The appellants in the first mentioned appeal asserted in their grievance petition that before 1‑7‑1983 they were paid mileage allowance as well as overtime, but thereafter mileage allowance/overtime was being paid upto Rs.1,200, with the result that every month Rs.40 to Rs.700 were being deducted. So far as the grievance petition brought by Karamat Ullah, appellant, is concerned, it is not' asserted that overtime was being paid to him before 1‑7‑1983. No evidence was produced by the appellants to the effect that actually overtime wages were paid before 1‑7‑1983 besides the mileage allowance. The appellants did not differentiate between mileage allowance and overtime and in the prayer clause they have mentioned the wages as "mileage allowance/overtime" Mileage allowance cannot be equated with overtime wages. Mileage allowance is allowed in lieu of T.A. whereas overtime wages are paid for duty given beyond fixed duty hours. Since the appellants failed to prove that before 1‑7‑1983 they were paid overtime wages besides mileage allowance, they claim a new right and are not asking for a vested right which may have been discontinued. Learned representative of the appellants has made reference to rule 5(d) appearing at page 485 of the Personnel Manual Volume‑I but the same is not helpful to the appellants. The rule states, "An allowance of one day's pay will be paid to all drivers shunters and firemen for each hundred miles run or eight hours duty shunting. This is over and above their substantive pay and covers all detentions and includes day and night expenses. It is clear from the: rule that it relates to mileage allowance since it is calculated at the rate of miles travelled. The concluding sentence of the rule makes it, quite clear that the allowance allowed covers all detentions. It also shows that instead of usual overtime wages the drivers, shunters and firemen are entitled to overtime allowance at the rate of one hundred miles run. The rate before 1‑7‑1983 was. Rs.4.50 and thereafter, according to the notification referred to above, it was raised to Rs.11 per hundred miles. It is thus clear that mileage allowance is given B in lieu of overtime. This being so, the appellants cannot claim overtime besides mileage allowance. Reference has been made by the learned representative to clause (g) of the same rule also. This clause relates to extraordinary conditions. It says, "The drivers and firemen will be paid one‑eighth of a day's pay for every extra hour they may be detained on duty with their engines after they have been continuously on duty for eight hours, provided the delays to their trains are not due to their fault." As a matter of fact the engine drivers give eight hours duty since engines are changed alongwith their drivers, therefore, they do not give duty beyond eight hours under normal circumstances. Of course if the engine fails, clause (g) becomes applicable and if the failure is not due to the fault of the drivers, they can claim one‑eighth of a day's pay for every extra hour spent by them. In the absence of any evidence that before 1‑7‑1983 the appellants were getting overtime wages besides mileage allowance, they cannot claim overtime. Since the total amount of mileage allowance has been fixed at Rs.1,200, this has caused grievance to the appellants but since this has been done by means of a notification, feeling that they would not be able to challenge the notification, therefore, so far as the appellants of appeal No.1 are concerned, they claim overtime wages by describing that mileage allowance and overtime was one and the same by mentioning the allowance as mileage allowance/overtime. A.C.C. attendants no doubt give duty for more than eight hours unlike drivers but unless a rule is framed in their favour, they cannot claim overtime. A copy of judgment of this Tribunal has been produced, which is based upon an award but the claim in the said case was that the A.C.C. attendants be treated at par with the drivers so far as mileage allowance is concerned, but while writing the concluding sentence it was written that the A.C.C. attendants are entitled to overtime as drivers. So the said judgment also is not helpful to the appellants. The learned lower Court has thus rightly dismissed the grievance petitions of the appellants.

3. As a result, the appeals fail and are dismissed. A.E./666/Lb.P ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals dismissed.