1989 PLP 707 (PLC(CS))

Saifullah Khan for Appellants. Muhammad Anwar Lodhi, Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th June, 1988. This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 22‑3‑1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for claiming 55% running allowance for the period of 180 days of L.P.R. in addition to his ordinary emoluments was accepted.

2. The facts of the case are that on retirement the respondent did not avail of L.P.R. and elected to work for the period for claiming encashment of the L.P.R. according to the rules. The appellant allowed him usual pay for the said period but did not allow 55% running allowance. Learned counsel for the, appellants has argued that since the respondent remained on duty for the period of L.P.R. and received mileage allowance, he cannot claim double benefit by asking for the payment of 55% running allowance along with the encashment of his pay of 180 days. He relies upon notification Exh.R‑1 in which the word `pay' and not wages is used. Exh.R‑1 is only a letter issued by the Divisional Superintendent, who is the appellant, to Ch. Muhammad Sharif his counsel for getting the cases adjourned in which the question of payment of 55% running allowance is disputed. The reason given is that clarification has been sought from the Finance Advisor. In the letter, reference is made to paragraph 2003 (Fundamental Rule 9(21)(a)(iii) of Establishment Code Part‑II. It is apparent that Exh.R‑1 has no evidentiary value. However, the rule referred to above needs examination. Fundamental Rule 9 (paragraph 2003) referred to above is not relevant as it does not deal with the cases of encashment of L.P.R The rule is a general one and says only this much that only those allowances can be included in the definition of nay which the Governor may include in the definition Learned Counsel has made reference to Rule 17(4) wherein the word `leave pay' is used. Since the period for which the respondent claimed 55% running allowance is not' a period during which he may have remained on leave, therefore, the same is not relevant to the case. Learned counsel has made reference to Rule 707(5) of the Establishment Code Part I also appearing at page No. 70 and has argued that since the respondent cannot be said to be on duty as he was on O.P.R., therefore, he was not entitled to 55% running allowance. The argument has no force. The learned counsel denies a hard fact. This is an admitted fact that the respondent did not avail of L.P.R. and remained on duty, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that he was not on duty. So the very rule relied upon by the appellant i.e. 707(5) of Establishment Code Vol. I support the case of the respondent. The relevant rule deals with similar cases. ‑Its Item No. 41 of P.R. Gazette No. 12 dated 15‑6‑1987 is relevant. It reads as under:‑ "ENCASHMENT OF L.P.R. BENEFITS: It has been decided that 55% running allowance may be allowed to the running staff for encashment of L.P.R. benefits in accordance with the instructions issued from time to time on the subject." The Gazette referred to above clearly provides that 55% running allowance be allowed to the running staff while allowing encashment of L.P.R. benefits. The rule is directly on the point in issue in this case and thus is very much relevant. It not only provides that 55% running allowance be given but it also shows that besides the Rule there are various previous instructions issued by the Railways that the running allowance should be allowed to the persons not availing of L.P.R. The learned lower Court, therefore, was justified in accepting the grievance petition of the respondent.

3. As a result of the observations made above the appeal fails and is dismissed. AA./554/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.