1976 PLP 234 (PLC)

(b) Payment of Wages Act (VI of 1936)

S. 15-Application for back wages

Limitation

Application barred by time-No sufficient cause brought on record to explain delay-Application, in circumstances, rejected. (c) Payment of Wages Act (VI of 1936)

S. 15

Authority

Jurisdiction

Termination of service under statutory rules West Pakistan Railway Service (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1961-Cannot be interfered with by Authority. The order will dispose of an application filed by Dilshad Ahmad, Ticket Collector v. Pakistan Railway for tine payment of wages of the period from May 1964 to March 1965. The facts of the cage are that the petitioner was employed as Ticket Collector by the respondent on 11-5-55 and is purported to have been illegally dismissed from the service on 10-2-65. The petitioner challenged these impugned orders in the civil Court and on 8-5-1965 Civil Judge, First Class, Lahore decided the petition in favour of the petitioner and held that impugned orders dated 10-2-65 were illegal, void and inoperative. After obtaining declaratory decree the petitioner filed the present case in this Court for the payment of his dues and while pleadings of the case were going on the respondent made him payment of Rs. 18,715.64. The petitioner after receiving the above payment made an application that as the respondent has not paid his wages from 20th May 1904 to 10th February 1965 this may also be realised from the respondent alongwith compensation. The petitioner appearing as his own witness has stated that in April 1964 he applied for one month's leave for preparation of LL.B. examination which was to commence on 27-5-64. The Divisional Commercial Officer who had a personal disliking for him compelled him to resign from service or withdraw the complaint which he had made against him and the Commercial Inspector. Under compusion he tendered his conditional resignation on which no orders were passed. On 10th June 196.4 after finishing his examination he requested the Divisional Personnel Officer to inform him about the fate of his resignation and if it had not been accepted he may be taken back on duty. He was not informed of any decision taken in his case till December 1964. In December 1964 in office of the Divisional Personnel Officer a charge-sheet was served upon him but no show-cause notice was served on him and as a result of that inquiry which was held by an incompetent authority his services were terminated. He was also not suspended from service from 20th May 1964 to 12th February 1965 and as kept out of duty he demanded wages for this period. From the perusal of orders of civil Court it becomes clear that orders of the defendant No. 2 dated 10-2-65 were declared illegal, void and inoperative and from this it appears that the petitioner by his own conduct is estopped from claiming wages prior to the period of 10-2-1.965 (Besides this application is barred by time and no sufficient cause has been brought on record to explain the belated submission of the claim). The petitioner has placed reliance on P L D 1973 S C 559 which is not applicable to the facts of the present case on all fours. R. W. I in his statement has deposed that the services of the petitioner were terminated under Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1961. This fact of the matter has remained unrebutted even in cross-exami?nation. Since Pakistan Railways (E and D) Rules, 1961 are statutory rules framed by the President of Pakistan this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. In view of the above I am clear in my mind that the petitioner has no case and accordingly dismiss the application. There is no order as to costs.