1991 PLP 520 (PLC(CS))

This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur, dated 12‑6‑1989 whereby the joint grievance petition filed by the appellants was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C.

2. I have heard Messrs. S. Tauqir Hussain, Advocate, Ch. Muhammad Akram, Abdul Majeed, representatives for the appellants and Ch. Rashid Ahmad, Advocate for the respondents Railways.

3. The appellants, in the grievance petition, had prayed as under:‑‑ (1) To direct the Respondents to book the applicants on Mail and Express trains according to the seniority and act according to the instructions contained in letter dated 12‑1‑1988; and (2) To hold that the applicants are entitled to be booked on Mail and Express Trains according to seniority against 20% quota reserved for upgraded Drivers.

4. The learned representatives for the appellants relied upon the Notification of the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Political Affairs and Communications, Railway Board's Letter No. P‑72‑SE‑2/36‑II(C.A), dated 4th July, 1973. In sub-para. (iii) it is laid down that:‑‑ "In matters of booking of various types of services seniority‑cum‑fitness and safety of train operations will be the sole criterion. Twenty per cent Mail and Express trains will be worked by Drivers Grades‑I and II qualified to Course P‑9 (written) and declared fit to operate Mail and Express trains." This letter also contains instructions to be followed in the interest of safety of trains operation. The appellants in their application have stated that they are Grades‑I and II qualified in Course 9 and they have been found fit to safely run Mail and Express trains and that they have been running Mail Service for some time. However, nowhere in the application it is stated that the respondents are not Grade‑I and II and have not passed P‑9 Course or that they have been found unfit by the Administration. The claims of the appellants is based only on the ground of their seniority. For the purpose of decision of application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. it would have to be accepted that they are senior to the respondents.

5. As pointed out above for appointing a Driver to run Mail train three criteria have been fixed by the Railway Administration viz. (1) seniority (2) fitness, and (3) safety of train operation. A Labour Court can decide question of seniority which as pointed out above cannot be disputed for the purposes of deciding application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. However, that alone is not the only criterion on which Administration can be directed by the Labour Court to put the appellants incharge as Driver of Mail trains. The question of fitness is not question which can be decided by the Labour Courts under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969. It will be too much to hold that Labour Court can decide as to which Driver can safely operate the trains. Both these questions of fitness and safety of train operation are within the exclusive jurisdiction of Railway Administration and Labour Court on the basis of `seniority' alone has no jurisdiction to grant prayer of the appellants. I find nothing wrong with the order. However, it may be remarked that in the interest of Administration itself it will not be proper to ignore the senior persons if they are otherwise found fit because it would likely create heart burning which may affect efficient working of the system.

6. With these observations I dismiss the appeal. M.Y.H./1555/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.