1997 PLP 468 (PLC)
PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through Divisional Superintendent, Karachi Versus NAZIR AHMED KHAN
| Citation | 1997 PLP 468 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through Divisional Superintendent, Karachi Versus NAZIR AHMED KHAN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 468 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 468 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 468 (PLC) (PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through Divisional Superintendent, Karachi Versus NAZIR AHMED KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Latif Saghar for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 20th October, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923), S. 2(n)(i) & Sched.‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Applicant who was Yard Master working in Office at Railway Station concerned, was a Railway servant and since he was drawing more than Rs.3,000 per month, would come within definition of "civil servant" and not ' workman'‑‑‑Applicant, thus could seek redress of his grievance in respect of his terms and conditions of service by filing his appeal before Service Tribunal‑‑‑Grievance petition filed by applicant before Labour Court, was not maintainable in circumstances. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 20th October, 1996. This appeal by Pakistan Railways arises from the order of the Sixth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad allowing the grievance petition of the respondent for encashment of six months wages on retirement as un-availed L.P.R.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent retired as Yard Master, Kotri Railway Station on 2‑12‑1991 after service of about 30 years. He applied for encashment of six months L.P.R. on 6‑6‑1991 and issued reminder on 8‑8‑1991 but his claim was rejected. He served the Railway with a grievance notice and then filed his grievance application.
3. It is the case of the Railways that the claim of the respondent for encashment of L.P.R. was rejected because the length of service qualifying for encashment was subsequently extended to 31 years and the respondent was not entitled to this benefit.
4. The main question in this case is whether the respondent as Yard Master drawing more than Rs.3,000 per month was a Railway servant coming within the definition of service of the Federation or was a worker under the Railways Act. The contention of the appellant Railway is that the respondent was a civil servant and if he was aggrieved he should have moved the Federal Services Tribunal for redress. The petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. was not maintainable.
5. The relevant law on this point is to be found under the Railways Act. Civil Servant Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act. Under section 3(7) of the Railways Act, 1890 any person employed by Railway Administration in connection with the service of a Railway is a Railway servant. Under section 148 of the Railways Act clause (2) any person working on a Railway is a Railway servant. Under section 2(n) subsection (ii) Workmen's Compensation Act a Railway servant employed on monthly wages not exceeding Rs.1,500 is a worker but if he gets salary above Rs.1,500 he is a Railway servant. Under the Schedule of Workmen's Compensation Act section 2(n)(1) clauses (e) (xii) and (xiii) a person serving in the Railway ' administration' is a civil servant but if he was employed on the Railway track and not at the station he would be a worker as defined in the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Yard Master working in the office at the Railway Station Kotri was, therefore, a Railway servant and since he was drawing more than Rs.1,500 per month he came within the definition of civil servant and he could therefore seek redress of his grievance in respect of his A terms and conditions of service by filing his appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. His grievance petition before the Labour Court is not maintainable and the order of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside and the appeal of the Railway is allowed. H.B.T./192/Lb.S Appeal allowed.