DECISION ' This purports to be information laid under subsection (3-a) of section 38, I. R.
0. In respect of an order made by the learned Fifth Labor Court on 17th January, 1980 in Application No, 119 of 1980 filed by one Mrs. Nasim Saddiq against the Pakistan Railways. That application was for the payment to her of the dues and emoluments to which she was entitled as Matron. The maintainability of the application was resisted by the Pakistan Railways inter alia on the grounds, firstly, that neither the provisions of the I. R.
0. Nor the Standing Orders are applicable to employees of hospitals run by the Railway, and secondly, that the applicant had not exhausted her remedy by way of appeal to the Department or authorities and hence the grievance petition by the applicant was not maintainable. The learned Labour Court has rejected both these preliminary legal objections raised by the Pakistan Railways and has directed that the application of Mrs. Nasim Saddiq be beard on mertis.
2. Now as regards the first preliminary legal objection raised by the Pakistan Railways, it may be pointed out that the grievance petition of Mrs. Nasim Saddiq falls to be considered under section 25-A, I. R.O. And not Standing Orders. As such it has to be considered whether the provisions of 1.R.
0. Are applicable to the Railway Hospital in which Mrs. Nasim Saddiq is employed and also to her.
Mr. S. M, A. Alvi, the learned counsel for the Pakistan Railways, submitted that the provisions of the I.
R.
0. Have been made inapplicable to establishments maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute or mentally unfit persons by Ordinance XXI of 1979. The said Ordinance. However, came into force on 5th April, 1979. Moreover the provisions of the said Ordinance are prospective and not retrospective. On the other hand the claim of Mrs. Nasim Saddiq is for wages with effect from March, 1979 i. e. Before the promulgation of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1979 (Ordinance XXI of 1979). As regards the second contention raised by the Pakistan Railways, namely that the applicant, Mrs. Nasim Saddiq, had not exhausted her right of appeal, it may be mentioned that she had in fact filed an appeal. The exact date of filing of the appeal is not known but it would appear from the letter, dated 4th May, 1980, written by the Railway Administration to Mrs. Nasim Saddiq informing her that her appeal was still pending, that it was filed at least one year back. It is most regrettable that such simple departmental appeal has not been decided by the Member (Traffic) Railway Board uptil now. It is these departmental delays which are responsible not only for frustration among the officials but also for unnecessary litigation in Courts.
It is hoped that the Member (Traffic) will take urgent steps for disposing of he appeal. In any case, the pendency of appeal with the Department would not debar the entertainment of the grievance petition made by A Mrs. Nasim Saddiq as the disposal of departmental appeal is not a pre- condition to the filing of the grievance petition under section 25-A.
4. For. The reasons discussed by me above, I find no ground for interfering, in exercise of the suo motu revisional powers of this Tribunal, with the impugned order of the learned Labour Court.