1988 PLP 1006 (PLC(CS))

S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th January, 1988. This is an appeal filed by the appellant Railways against an impugned or order dated 11‑10‑1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent directing his reinstatment in service with full back benefits. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent claimed to be employed as Block Maintainer in the appellant Railways and being a permanent employee, had 16 years blotless service to his credit. That on 15‑9‑1985, he was` suspended without any charge‑sheet whatsoever and subsequently on 3‑10‑1985 he was served with a charge‑sheet dated 19‑1I‑1985. The respondent claimed that though he had replied on 8‑12‑1985 yet, on 2‑6‑1986 he was served with a second show‑cause notice, dated 24‑5‑1986 and despite his request to supply copies of they proceedings against him vide application, dated 6‑6‑1986, he was not provided the' same, so, on 11‑7‑1986, he submitted his reply to the second show‑cause notice; However, as per claim of the respondent he was removed from service, vide letter, dated 15‑10‑1986, therefore, he preferred a Departmental appeal dated 7‑10‑1986, followed by a grievance notice, dated 18‑12‑1986, and then, the present grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969. The respondent further claimed that not only the charge‑sheet was wholly time‑barred, but, also he was removed from the service without holding any required lawful domestic enquiry and affording him full opportunity to defend himself. Further, the case of the respondent was that it was incorrect to allege against him that due to his negligence there was a collusion of the two trains even without disclosing the date of occurrence of any such misconduct in the so‑called charge‑sheet. 3. The appellant Railways resisted the petition of the respondent on the grounds that the provisions of the Standing Order Ordinance, 1968 were not applicable to the employees of the Railways as they were regulated by the provisions of Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, that it was not correct that the charge‑sheet was time‑barred and that before dismissal of the respondent a proper and lawful enquiry was conducted against him in which he was afforded full opportunity to defend himself and that as the charges against him were fully proved, therefore, he was rightly dismissed from service so, was not entitled to maintain grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed. 4. Both the parties examined their respective evidence and they were duly cross‑examined and thereafter the learned Labour Court had passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. Ishaq Abbasi the learned Advocate for the appellant Railways and Mr. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent and have carefully perused the record and proceedings of the ease. At the very outset I would observe here that Mr. Ishaq proceedings the learned Advocate for the appellant Railways has no case and the learned Labour Court was quite right and justified in passing the impugned order directing the reinstatement of the respondent with full back benefits. In the present case, I would hold, after careful perusal of the documents, brought on record by the parties, evidence produced in support of their respective cases and their cross‑examination and all legal aspects, connected with the present case, that the impugned order is well‑reasoned and needs not to be interfered with. This is a case of unnecessary and uncalled for litigation and wastage of not only Government money on the part of the appellant Railways, but also a harassment and torture on the poor and helpless lower grade Railway employee and also a clear‑cut victimization of an employee at the cost of other persons directly responsible for such an accident and loss if any. I would, therefore, direct the Chef Engineer and other concerned responsible higher officers of Pakistan Railways to immediately catch all such persons, irrespective of their present officers positions, to relevant all of them as err law who were concerned responsible for sue an accident on account of technical mishaps being their negligence in which human lives may be involved and copy of this decision be immediately sent to the above mentioned higher authorities of Pakistan Railways so that the recoveries of loss be also made from their personal funds. 6. For the reasons stated by me above, I would maintain the impugned order and would dismiss the present appeal. The respondent is directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits forthwith. The amount of back benefits, deposited in his Tribunal be immediately paid to him after due verification. A.E./1256/Lb. S. Appeal dismissed.