1976 PLP 835 (PLC(CS))

The dispute relates to Quarter No. F-3, situated in Post Office Compound, Sargodha. It is the property of the Central Government and is meant for providing accommodation to the clerical staff posted at Sargodha. It was occupied by Mr. Ghulam Hussain Clerk who was transferred to Phullarwan in September, 1971. Accordingly it was vacated by him. Thereafter it was occupied by Messrs Mazhar Hussain Steno and Nazir Azmat Clerk. Other clerks also joined. On 19th May 1974 when other clerks were away Mr. Mazhar Hussain Steno brought his wife and transferred personal effects of other Clerks to the Recreation Rooms. At first he told his fellow occupants that he has brought his wife for medical treatment for a week only but he prolonged his stay. The question of allotment of the said quarter arose. Messrs Mazhar Hussain Steno and Nazir Azmat Clerk were the claimants, for allotment. The question was duly considered by the Allotment Committee. It was found that Mr. Nazir Azmat was transferred to Sargodha in May, 1971 and he had applied for the allotment of quarter in the same month on the other hand Mr. Mazhar Hussain was transferred to the same Town on 22nd September 1971 and he had applied for the allotment of the quarter on 30th September 1971. On the principle of "first come first served" the quarter was allotted to Mr. Nazir Azmat on 9tii July 1974. Another question was raised before the Allotment Committee. It was that Mr. Nazir Azmat was unmarried man whereas Mr. Mazhar Hussain was a married man, therefore, the latter had the better right to get allotment. On this ques tion the finding of the Allotment Committee was that Mr. Nazir Azmat had divorced his wife and he was likely to marry in future. The contention of Mr. Mazhar Hussain was rejected. A notice was served on Mr. Mazhar Hussain to vacate the quarter on 4th September 1974 and finally the quarter was taken from him and was given to Mr. Nazir Azmat. In the above circumstances Mr. Mazhar Hussain filed a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, praying for the cancellation of the order of the Allotment Committee and fur a direction that the quarter be allotted to him. He based his claim on the ground that he applied for she quarter first in time and he was a married man and had a preferential right to get the allotment in his favour in accordance with the Rules of the Department. He further stated that the Secretary of the Union was a member of the Allotment Committee but he was not joined in. In this petition Mr. Nazir Azmat was not made party. Only Superintendent of the Post Offices, Sargodha Division was impleaded as respondent in this case. The application was contested. The preliminary objections were that the Junior Labour Court had no jurisdiction to try his petition and that the petition was bad for non joineer of parties as Mr. Nazir Azmat was not joined as respondent. On the merits of the case it was stated that Allotment Committee duly considered the case of both the claimants, and that the quarter in dispute was rightly allotted to Mr. Nazir Azmat and possession of it was delivered to him. The Junior Labour Court held that a married employee had a preferential right to secure allotment of accommodation, therefore, the quarter should have been allotted to Mr. Mazhar Hussain. It was also held that the finding of the Allotment Committee contravened the Departmental Rules therefore Mr. Mazhar Hussain had a genuine grievance. The order of the allotment committee was set aside and the Superintendent, Post Offices, was directed to allot the quarter to Mr. Mazhar Hussain. Aggrieved by this decision the Superintendent, Post Offices as well as Mr. Nazir Azmat have come up in appeals. The first question raised before me was that Mr. Mazhar Hussain was a Steno and as such he was not a workman. The argument has no force. The duty of a Steno is to obtain dictation of his officer in shorthand and thereafter to type the same. At the maximum it is a skilled work under both the Ordinances, namely Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, killed worker is a workman. The real dispute between the parties is as to whether the order of the allotment Committee while allotting the quarter to Mr. Nazir Azmat is bad in law. It was attacked on three grounds. First that the representative of the Union was not joined as a member of the Committee. Second that the application by Mr. Mazhar Hussain was filed first in point of time Third, the Departmental Rules were contravened because Mr. Mazhar Hussain being :harried man had a preferential right to secure allotment of the quarter. The first two objections have no force. On the first objection, it was planed by the Superintendent, Post Offices, who was the Chairman of the Allotment Committee, that Mr. Sardar Khan was the Union Representative it he had gone on medical leave. In his absence Mr. Muhammad Khan as subsequently, appointed as nominee of the Union but he had also gone Karachi to attend some other meeting. It is obvious that the Allotment Committee gave proper chance to the Union Representative to attend meeting at as he was not available, therefore, the matter was decide in his absence. The duty of the Allotment Committee was to inform the Representative and if the said Representative was busy somewhere else it was not necessary to adjourn the meeting. The second objection was that the application of Mazhar Hussain was filed first in point of time. The Allotment Committee observed pat Mr. Nazir Azmat was posted at Sargodha in May 1971, whereas Mr. Mazhar Hussain was posted there in September, 1971. It was a proved fact at Mr. Nazir Azmat arrived at Sargodha prior to the other claimant. The application of Mr. Nazir Azmat was not available. Hz adduced oral evidence other officials that he had filed in application in the month of May, 1971 was within the competency of the: Allotment Committee to believe the Evidence, produced by Nazir Azmat. The conclusion drawn by them is unassailable. The third objection was that Mr. Mazhar Hussain was a married an and he had a preferential right to get allotment. The Director-General Post Office, in his Circular No. II dated 16th October 1967, issued an Appendix 16 which provides Rules for allotment of residential quarters in the postal colonies. The Rule No. 8 is as under: "No accommodation will be allotted to an unmarried employee or an employee having no family at all so long as others entitled to the same class of accommodation are on the waiting list." The factual position on the date of allotment, was that Mr. Nazir Azmat .s an unmarried person whereas Mr. Mazhar Hussain was a married man. Without any manner of doubt Mr. Nazir Azmat was not entitled to get any accommodation because the other claimant who was married was on the citing list. It was not the case of Nazir Azmat before the Allotment committee that he had a family. According to the Rules `family' means employee's wife, children including step and adopted children, parents, unmar ried or widowed sisters and minor brothers if residing with and wholly dependent upon him. Mr. Nazir Azmat never brought it to the notice of the Allotment Committee that he had any other dependent. The circumstances also show that he had no dependent. It was admitted that from September 1972 to May 1974 Mr. Nazir Azmat alongwith other Clerks including Mr. Mazhar Hussain had been residing in the same quarter, so it is clear that no dependent was with him. In view of rule 8 referred to above the quarter should not have been allotted to Mr. Nazir Azmat. The allotment contravened the Departmental Rules. The last question is whether a Labour Court is competent to redress a grievance if a postal employee has not been allotted a quarter in accordance with the Rules of the Department. Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 says that a worker may bring his grievance in respect of a right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settle ment for the time being in force. The question is whether the allotment of a quarter is a right guaranteed or secured to a postal employee by or under any law. In Estate Officer, Government of Pakistan v. Syed Tahir Hussain (P L D 1962 S C 75), an employee of the Central Government was ordered to vacate accommoda tion. He filed a writ in the High Court taking plea that the order contravened the Karachi Allocation Rules. The High Court issued a writ quashing the order but appeal was accepted by the Supreme Court. The view expressed by the Supreme Court was that the Allocation Rules had no statutory back ing and their contravention does not offend any vested right of a Central Government employee. It was observed by Supreme Court: "The learned Judges described the Karachi Allocation Rules as "statutory rule" but with all respect it seems to us that the assumption is a difficult one to make. The Rules themselves do not refer to any statute under which they are made. We have already said that it is possible that these Rules may have been made with reference to Fundamental Rule 45, which is itself a statutory rule, but it does not follow that rule made under a statutory rule are also statutory rules. It is in our opinion, for more reasonable to regard these Rules as having been made for the better direction of the affairs of the Estate Office in Karachi, and to ensure that Government accommodation was distribut ed equitably and to the best advantage. We consider upon a general appreciation of the content and purpose of the Karachi Allocation Rules that they may best be described as "internal regulations for the guidance" of the Estate Officer. The words quoted above are taken from the judgment of the judicial Committee in the case Corporation of Calcutta v. Province of Bengal where their Lordships of the Privy Council observed as follows: The exact regulations which deal with the terms on which houses occupied by Government officials are provided are not easy to ascertains." We shall have occasion to refer to this decision in greater detail almost immediately, but here we refer to it for the purpose of indicating that similar Rules relating to provision of Government residences for officers made by the Government of undivided Bengal were treated by the Privy Council as "regulations of an internal or subsidiary kind, in other words, as mere rules of convenience for the better working of the particular department. No claim of a vested right can arise out of such rules." The above view was followed in P L D 1967 Lah. 709 by a Division Bench of Lahore High Court` The ratio decidendi in both the cases was that if the Rules framed by the Government have a statutory backing then any right accrues to a person but if the Rules have been made for the con venience of a particular department, no right accrues to any person if the Rules have been contravened. In the present case the Rules of allotment of residential quarters in the postal colonies have been framed by the Direc tor-General but they have not been framed under any statute. These rules have not statutory backing, therefore, their contravention does not give any cause of action to any postal employee. I have no doubt in my mind that postal employees have no guaranteed or secured right to get allotment of accommodation. It is not included in the terms and conditions of the postal employees, or as far my knowledge goes in the conditions of any Government employee provincial or Central, that the employer is bound to provide residential accommodation to her employees. If any employee has not been provided any accommodation, he cannot knock the door of any Court of law because it is not a guaranteed or secured right to provide accommodation to him. The Departmental Rules have been contravened in this case but a Labour Court is not competent to provide any redress the employee because his right of getting the allotment is not a guaranteed or secured right. It is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Department to allocate a quarter to a particular employee or not. Even if they have made a wrong decision it is not open for the Courts to interfere. The result is that both the appeals are accepted and the order of the trial Court is set saide.