1988 PLP 377 (PLC)

Saifullah Khan for Appellant. Syed Ibrar Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th July, 1988. This is an appeal preferred against the decision dated 7‑3‑1988 received the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby le grievance petition of the respondents has been accepted to the extent it relates to respondents Nos. 1 to _11 and 16 and 1 directing that calendar day weekly rest be allowed to them. The respondents except 12 to 15 are admittedly continuous workers and they are being allowed 24 consecutive hours rest in a week but they claim in the grievance petition that calendar day rest be given to them. Respondents Nos. 12 to 15 have not been allowed calendar day weekly rest on the ground that they were not proved to be continuous worked. The learned lower Court has based its judgment on rule 71(1) of Advance Chapter‑III of Personnel Manual (Hours of Employment Rules and Regulations), but there is no provision in it that calendar day weekly rest can be allowed. The learned lower Court has reproduced the rule but in spite of it failed to notice that whatever it was allowing was not covered by law. The provision is only this much that in each week commencing from Sunday rest of not less than 24 consecutive hours will be allowed to the railway servants, except the ones whose employment is essentially intermittent. learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show me any other rule framed in respect of railway servants. He has, however, argued that since the respondents are employed in the locoshed, they are governed by the Factories Act and, therefore, under section 35 of the said Act, they are entitled to calendar day weekly rest. I am afraid this was not the case of the respondents before the learned lower Court. If reliance had been placed upon section 35 of the Factories Act, it would have been possible for the appellant to meet it. According to definition of `factory' given in the Factories Act. factory is that wherein including its precinct ten or more persons are employed and manufacturing process is done. Since the point was not raised before the learned lower Court, the parties did not produce any evidence on the point. Rule 71(1) is employed in loco shed also are governed by it. The duty resorters allowing to the railway servants 24 consecutive hours rest in a week arc prevailing since long and unless it is proved that they are against any provision of law, no direction to effect any change in them can be issued. Since the impugned decision is not warranted by the rule cited by the learned lower Court, the same is not sustainable.

3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respondents is dismissed. M.Y.H./575/Lb.P. Appeal dismissed