Pakistan Railways Establishment Code

Railway employee, who -had remained under suspension, when re-instated was entitled to full salary for the period of suspension minus the amount of subsistence allowance received by him during the period of suspension

Payment of full salary including subsistence allowance paid during the period of suspension, would tantamount to making the double payment of the same claim to the extent of the subsistence allowance which he had already received during the relevant period.

Two posts were required to be filled by departmental promotion, whereas department filled in said two posts through direct appointment without even considering case of petitioner who at that time was eligible for promotion, and that procedure adopted by Authorities was according to petitioner, wholly illegal

Department was unable to controvert factual and legal position convassed by petitioner

Contentions raised by petitioner required examination

Leave to appeal was granted in circumstances.

Employee who worked for more than twenty years in Railway Department left his service on account of his domestic difficulties

Said employee, after five years absence, applied for the same job and he was freshly appointed

Employee claimed back benefits for the period of five years during which he remained absent contending that no enquiry was held for termination of his service

Contention of employee was repelled in view of the fact that under Railway Establishment Code, Vol. II, R. 2014 after continuous absence from duty for five years, an employee would cease to be in employment

Grievance petition of employee was rightly dismissed in circumstances.

Employees who were performing duties directly connected with charge of moving trains, were deputed to get training from Diesel Training School, Karachi

Employees, on return after completing their training claimed daily allowance for the period they stayed at Karachi, but their claim was denied by Authority on ground that employees who received running allowance, were not under relevant rules, entitled to daily allowance for period of their stay at Karachi

Relevant rules provided that when a Railway servant was selected to undergo a course of training, he could draw daily allowance for halts at place of training according to prescribed scale

Only exception contained in said rules was with regard to probationers or persons in receipt of a stipend or such Railway servants who were granted free messing or necessary allowance in lieu of daily allowance under special orders

Said exception not being applicable to case of employees, their claim with regard to daily allowance, was not invalid, in circumstances.

Rules 2043 & 2044, Pakistan Railways Establishment Code were reproduction of Fundamental Rules 53 & 54, while their corresponding provisions in Civil Service Rules (Punjab) were Rules 7.2 & 7.3

Rules 7.2 & 73, Civil Service Rules (Punjab) having been amended by Notification dated 26-9-1993, result of such amendment was that Government servant after suspension was to remain entitled to same pay and allowance which he was drawing immediately before his suspension

Federal Government and Pakistan Railways should also consider if so advised to amend Fundamental Rules 53, 54 & 2044 in terms of amendment in Rr. 7.2 & 7.3, Civil Service Rules (Punjab).

Term "honourable acquittal" as used in Pakistan Railways Establishment Code; Civil Service Rules (Punjab) and Fundamental Rules does not figure in Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Every acquittal is therefore, to be deemed as "honourable acquittal".

Employees thus, could not claim daily allowance in addition to the running allowance.

Employees thus, could not claim daily allowance in addition to the running allowance

In the presence of persons occupying those posts in B-20, promotion blockade did not exist in the cadre of civil servant.

Respondent was employed as a Wireman by Railways, he proceeded on sick leave and instead of appearing before Railway Doctor, as directed by office, got his treatment from Homoeopathic Doctor who certified his fitness for resuming duty

When respondent came to report for duty he was allegedly not allowed to resume it and was shown as removed from service under the rules

Respondent remained absent from service for more than ten years after which he came to report back for duty

Respondent was to appear before Railway Doctor which he did not, nor did he apply for leave during all these years

Homoeopathic doctor who had treated respondent had not been examined before Labour Court and as such no opinion could be formed about the nature of illness respondent worker was suffering from and whether he was unable to attend office for a decade

No order for removal of respondent from service was, however, shown to have been passed in writing by Authorities nor any opportunity to show cause against removal was afforded to him to meet the requirement of natural justice

Order of reinstatement passed by Labour Court was upheld.

Retired person who elects not to avail of leave preparatory to retirement would be deemed to be on duty and entitled to get salary by way of encashment of L.P.R. to the extent of 180 days according to rules

Grievance petition of employee claiming that, besides his usual pay, he was entitled to fifty-five per cent running allowance towards encashment of L.P.R. to the extent of 180 days, was rightly accepted.

Appeal against L.P.R. benefits allowed to employee held, had no merits.

Word "may" occurring in opening part of R. 2044 (F.R. 54) to be treated as "shall".

Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that said respondents were permitted to serve at a particular station on their own request in view of lack of accommodation at their headquarters-Rule 205 of Pakistan Railways Establishment Code, Vo1.I did not permit payment of daily allowance when halt of an employee at any place exceeded 10 days, for, in that event, the place of halt was to be regarded as his headquarter and Punjab Appellate Tribunal/High Court had misconstrued the Rule

Operation of impugned order suspended but amount, already paid to respondents was not to be recovered during pendency of appeal.

Railway employee suspended from service as a consequence of his involvement in some criminal cases and after honourable acquittal therefrom re-instated with full benefits and restored to his post

all salary for period of suspension calculated under R. 2044 of the Code and after deducting the amount paid to him as "subsistence grant" during suspension, balance of salary paid to him

Authority under Payment of Wages Act, however, allowing claim of employee for payment of deducted amount which order on appeal was upheld by Labour Court

Rules 2043 & 2044 of Railway Establishment Code do not seek to carve out a new contract of employment between the parties nor payment of subsistence grant was intended to be a penal consequence for initiating a misconceived action against the employee or rewarding employee for suffering inconvenience on account of that abortive action

Analysis of Rules shows no ambiguity and there was no justification to compel the employer to pay to employee full salary although he had already received, half of it during period of his suspension

Action taken by employer, held, did not call for interference

Petition allowed and impugned orders quashed and set aside

Full salary allowed to employee by Authority, if not already paid, directed to be paid after deducting payments made during suspension period in terms of R. 2003 of the Code.

Daily allowance being kind of travelling allowance has been excluded from definition of wages and was not admissible under Rules framed by Railways

Authority under Act IV of 1936, held, acted illegally and without lawful authority in holding that daily allowance was admissible under rules framed by Railways.

Said rules deal with a situation different from situation dealt with in letter of Finance Ministry as applying to all categories, held, did not debar respondents, who went outside their beat in Iranran territory on official business, from obtaining benefit envisaged by said letter of Ministry of Finance

Order of Courts below allowing said benefits upheld.

Para. 205-Daily Allowance-Continuous halt for more than ten days-D. A. not admissible without general or individual exemption by competent authority-No exemption granted-Acceptance of claim of D. A. for more than ten days halt by Labour Court, in circumstances, not approved by Appellate Tribunal as there was no right guaranteed by law-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38 (3).

To take effect either immediately on its receipt or on expiry of a reasonable time which . could not be more than one month.-[Industrial dispute].

Inquiry-Word "inquiry" does not necessarily mean examination of witness or recording their evidence-Railway workman dismissed for misconduct-Dismissal order set aside by Labour Court on grounds that inquiry was defective-Labour Court giving option to Railway administration to hold fresh inquiry if so desired and back benefit made dependent upon result of such fresh inquiry-Accused served with fresh charge-sheet and after obtaining explanation thereto and duly considering same, imposed penalty of with holding of one increment-Back benefits not allowed-Workman approaching Labour Court again by application under S. 51, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 claiming back wages Labour Court rejecting application-Appeal filed before Labour Appellate Tribunal-Order of Labour Court under S. 51, held, not appealable yet Appellate Tribunal exercising suo motu revision powers under S. 38 (3-a), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and examined case-Worker governed by Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 providing two modes of holding an inquiry (1) service of statement of allegations and asking accused to submit explanation and then on basis of statement of allegations and his explanations imposition of any penalty and (2) appointment of full-fledged Enquiry Officer to examine witnesses and to submit detailed report to competent authority- ~.-: Accused worker dealt with according to first mode-Action in circumstances, held, constituted inquiry and compliance with terms of option given by Labour Court-Refusal of back benefit, in circumstances, held, within power of competent authority under r. 2044 of Railways Establishment Code hence not open to exception-Order of Labour Court refused to be interfered with Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A, 37, 51 & 38 (3-a) and Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, r. 5 read with Pakistan Railway Establishment Code, r. 2044.

Provision mandatory-Grant of full pay for suspension period if such servant acquitted-Discretionary power of competent authority-Railway servant not as of right entitled to full pay for such period-Railway servant arrested on charge of theft of articles from railway wagon-Suspended-Claiming full pay after acquittal for suspension period Claim rejected-Grievance petition rejected by Labour Court-Order of Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal.

Rr. 1711, 2043 & 2044-Suspension-Provisions of r: 1711 of general application-Not limited to cases of arrest in cases connected with official duty-Wages after re-instatement-Discretion of competent authority-Railway Official arrested and undertrial before criminal Court in case not connected with official duty put under suspension-Suspension continued even after release on bail-Acquittal found not honourable but on benefit of doubt - Order of Labour Court as appellate forum regarding not allowing full wages for period of suspension, in circumstances, held; not exceptionable by Labour Appellate. Tribunal in suo muto revisional jurisdiction-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38 (3-a) read with Payment of Wages Act (TV of 1936), S. 17.

Ss. 25-A & 37-Railway employee-Claim for wages of suspension period-Employee placed under suspension due to being in Police custody on account of criminal case but re-instated after acquittal by criminal Court-Labour Court holding that acquittal was to be construed as honourable acquittal and allowing claim for full pay for entire suspension period-Judgment of Criminal Court indicative that acquittal was on account of benefit of doubt-Order of competent authority allowing only suspension allowances, in circumstances, upheld, and order of Labour Court set aside by Labour Appellate Tribunal

Pakistan Railways Establishment Code, Vol II, rr. 2043 & 2044.

And Pakistan Railway Code for Accounts Department (1953) read with Government of India Act, 1935, Art. 241; Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 224; Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 224 and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art, 268(7)-Railway Establishment Codes for Establishment and Accounts dealing with sales, etc. framed from time to time-Held, existing laws.

Rr. 705(5), 728 & 2116 read with President's Letter dated 11-7-1974, Policy Letter dated 13-11-1974 issued by Vice-Chairman, Pakistan Railway and Payment of Wages (Federal Railway) Rules. 1938, r. 5(ii)Recreation leave

Recreation allowance

"Pay", "average pay", "wages" 'Definitions-Pay of "running staff" includes running "allowance" when they take leave on "average pay"

Payment of less than full pay to employee during casual leave-Amounts to imposition of a penalty not provided for in Discipline and Appeal Rules-Running staff of Railway availing recreation leave

Held, entitled to recreation allowance equal to one month's pay including 55 % running allowance-Deduction and non-payment of running allowance to such staff

Held, illegal and without lawful authority-Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 15.

Acquittal on criminal charge-Salary, payment of, for period of suspension-Arrest of respondents followed by their suspension from service-Respondents discharged under S. 253, Cr. P. C. and in consequence reinstated-Question whether acquittal honourable or otherwise, held, did not arise in circumstances-Point requiring consideration before coming to conclusion about honourable acquittal or otherwise being whether respondent's suspension justified and proper enquiry into circumstances leading to their arrest and suspension ever held-Every arrest resulting in suspension of railway employee not sufficient to deprive him of his full pay in terms of r. 2044 of Pakistan Railway Establishment Code unless such suspension held to be justified after inquiry-Order of Revising Appellate Authority of Pakistan Railway depriving respondents of their full pay/arrears of salary for period of suspension, held further, rightly treated as male fide.

Ss. 7 & 11 and Pakistan railway Establishment Code, S. 157 Rules framed by General Manager, P. W. R. under S. 157 of the Code for assessment of rent in respect of accommodation provided to Railway employees-Repugnant to provisions of Ss. 7 & 11 of payment of Wages Act, 1936-Railway authorities are not entitled to deduct more amount than what has been provided in Ss. 7(2)(d) & 11 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, even if occupation of employee is later declared unauthorised for some reason.

Ss. 7, 15 & 2(vi) and Pakistan Railway Establishment Code, Vol. 11, r. 2044Railway employees (whose monthly wages did not exceed Rs. 200) wrongfully dismissed from service-Civil Court declaring dismissal invalid

Re-instatement of employees-Arrears of salaries for period employees remained out of employment due to wrongful dismissal

Railway administration refusing payment of full arrears and making only fractional payment purporting to act under r. 2044 of Railway Code-Commissioner on application under S. 15, Payment of Wages Act allowing full salary to be paid Contention that Railway administration had plenary power under r. 2044 of Railway Code to make deductions from arrears of salary of re-instated employees and that arrears of salary of such re-instated employees, not "wages earned"

Dismissal from service-Pay after re-instatement-Order of dismissal or removal declared to be illegal and void by civil Court-Rule 2044 does not apply in such case Civil Court setting aside order terminating services of railway servant as "void" and "inoperative" and granting declaration that "he remained a Foreman Grade III in service of N. W. R. on date of filing of suit"-Such railway servant, held, entitled to full salary and allowances for period of absence under general principle of law and claim may possibly be covered by rule 2013.

rr. 2044 & 2013 - Railway servant - Dismissal -from service-Pay after re-instatement-Order of dismissal or removal declared to be illegal and void by civil Court-Rule 2044 does not apply in such case Civil Court setting aside order terminating services of railway servant as "void" and "inoperative" and granting declaration that "he remained a Foreman Grade Ill in service of N. W. R. on date of filing of suit"-Such railway servant, held, entitled to full salary and allowances for period of absence under general principle of law and claim may possibly be covered by rule 2013.

Rule applicable not only to cases tried by criminal Courts but also to cases of persons re-instated in pursuance of civil Court decrees-Petitioner re-instated under decree of civil Court-Railway Administration not applying provisions of r. 2044 and refusing to pay wages for period he was illegally kept of duty-"Authority" under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, in circumstances, held, could order payment of full wages-Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 15.

r.2044-1(a) (F. R. 54)-Word "may" used in rule-To be construed as "shall" in case of person honourably acquitted-Such person, held, entitled to full pay, etc. to which he would have been entitled if not dismissed, removed, or suspended-Payment of pay, etc. not discretionary with revising or appellate authority.

Pakistan Railways Establishment Code Vol. II, r. 2044- Rule applicable not only to cases tried by criminal Courts but also to cases of persons re-instated in pursuance of civil Court decrees Petitioner re-instated under decree of civil Court-Railway Administration not applying provisions of r. 2044 and refusing to pay wages for period he was illegally kept of duty-"Authority" under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, in circumstances, held, could order payment of full wages-Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 15.

Word "May" used in rule-To be construed as "shall" in case of person honourably acquitted-Such person, held, entitled to full pay, etc. to which he would have been entitled if not dismissed removed, or suspended-Payment of pay, etc. not discretionary with revising or appellate authority.

Pakistan Railways Establishment Code r. 1725-Delinquent punished under rule-Enhancement of punishment cannot be ordered after inordinate delay.

Vol. II, r. 2044Railway servant removed or discharged by Railway Authority but re-instated on declaration by Civil Court that removal or discharge was void-Whether r. 2044 not applicable in such case-Whether, if r. 2044 be applicable, clause (a) or clause (b) off' rule would apply,

Rule not meant to be used for sending employees on compulsory leave merely with object of not paying their wages.

Pakistan Railways Establishment Code Rules, r. 6.2)-Non-compliance with provisions of S. R. 6.2-Refusal by competent authority to approve recommendation made by Selection Board would be justified-Approval, however, by competent authority without having any objection about non-compliance of S. R. 6.2Approved list would be legal.

S. 240 (3) read with Pakistan Railway Establishment Code, r. 1708 proviso-Proviso to r. 1708, Pakistan Railway Establishment Code - Safe-guard against extreme cases - Not to be easily or lightly resorted to - Exercise of power by General Manager under proviso - Subject to requirement of reasonable opportunity being given to public servant to show cause against his dismissal - Notice clause in service agreement that service was terminable on one month's notice or on payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice - Service, nevertheless, held, governed by constitutional provisions - "Termination by notice" and "removal"-Not distinct-Declaration that employee continued to hold his post after date of illegal termination till age of superannuation attained during pendency of suit-Granted- Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 177 (b).

Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 2 (vi)-"Wages-"Does not necessarily mean "earned wages"-Employee ready and willing to render service but employer not giving employee opportunity to render such service (employee suspended during inquiry under charge-sheet but re-instated by decree of Court)-Entitled to wages for period of suspension-Railway Administration not electing to make any order in one of the modes of R. 2044, Pakistan Railway Establishment Code, Vol. II-Employee entitled to full wages[Arvind Mills Limited v. K. R. Gadgil A I R 1941 Born. 26 considered.]

Arrears of salary-Pay after re-instatement, for period of suspension-(Government servant: Railway employee)Claim negatived by Divisional Superintendent on strength of rule which was inapplicable-Mandamus granted directing consideration and decision of case under proper rule-Pakistan Railway Establishment Code, Rule 2044 (F. R. 54)-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170.

Government servant-Arrears of salary Pay after re-instatement, for period of suspension-(Government servant : Railway employee)Claim negatived by Divisional Superintendent on strength of rule which was inapplicable-Mandamus granted directing consideration and decision of case under proper rule-Pakistan Railrva,1Establishment Code, Rule 2044 (I'. R. 54)-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170.

Government servant- (Railway employee: permanent Foreman Grade III) - "Termination of service" by one month's notice, in accordance with terms of agreement of employment, without show-cause notice, and in disregard of provisions of S. 240 (3), Government of India, Act, 1935

"Void and inoperative"; relevant term in agreement of employment "invalid" (By majority) "Termination" of service tantamount to `'dismissal" within meaning of S. 240 (3)-Relief granted: (By majority order of Court) Employee remained a Foreman Grade III in service of North Western Railway "on the date of filing of his suit"-Pakistan Railway Establishment Code, rr. 1702, 1707, 1708, 1712 & 1731

Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, r. 49 `Government of India Act, 1935, Ss. 240 (4),' 241, 276 & 277 [Federation of Pakistan v. Fayyaz Ahmad 1' L D 1958 Lah. 500 majority view reversed].

Railway employee : permanent Foreman Grade III) - "Termination of service" by one month's notice, in accordance with terms of agreement of employment, without show-cause notice, and in disregard of provisions of S. 240 (3), Government of India Act, 1935-" void and inoperative"; relevant term in agreement of employment "invalid" (By majority)"Termination" of service tantamount to "dismissal" within meaning of S. 240 (3)-Relief granted : (By majority order of Court)Employee remained a Foreman Grade III in service of North Western Railway "on the date of filing of his suit"-Pakistan Railway Establishment Code, rr. 1702, 1707, 1708, 1712 & 1731Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, r. 49Government of India Act, 1935, Ss. 240 (4), 241, 276 & 277[Federation of Pakistan v. Fayyaz Ahmad P L D 1958 Lab. 500 majority view reversed].

Pakistan Railways Establishment Code Pakistan Railway Establishment Code, Vol. II, r. 2044, cl. (a)-Government servant under suspension for being involved in commission of offence-"Honourably acquitted"-Meaning of phrase-Words and phrases-Discretion of Executive authority

Whether High Court would go into question of "honourable acquittal" under their writ jurisdiction-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170.

Pakistan Railways Establishment Code Vol. 11, para 2126Period of absence from duty should in fact have been treated as extraordinary leave before para. 2126 could be invoked to deprive employee of his salary.

Pakistan Railway Establishment Code, Vol. II, paragraph 2046-Compulsory retirement at 55 of Class 1 Officers-Order granting extension void-President has no option to retain superannuated officers in service-''Pleasure" of President-Extent-Expression misleading in the context of a democratic Constitution-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 180-Rules cannot be modified by Cabinet's letter of instructions-Rules cannot be deemed to have been amended by President's order in a particular case-Invalid order of grant of extension, whether can operate as order of re-employment.

Pakistan Railways Establishment Code Transfers-G. G. a competent authority to order transfer Evidence Act (I of. 1872), S. 88-Presumption under section- Limited to terms of message transmitted-Presumption as to person by whom such message was delivered for transmission Expressly prohibited-Government of India Act, 1935, S. 77Sch. III of Rules of Business, framed by G. G. under section Persons competent to act on behalf of G. G. Whether Secretary etc., empowered to make order.