' Vide copy of Letter No, FD. SR-III-13-69/67 dated 1-6-1977 from the Government of Punjab, Finance Department, addressed to all the Heads of attached Departments in the Punab (Exh. R-1), the Governor of the Punjab in supersession of all the existing instructions was pleased to order that with effect from 1-7-1977, the grant of rest and recreation allowance shall be regulated as mentioned under the said letter. Allah Wasaya and 13 others, respondents, are permanent employees of the Irrigation Department (Taunsa Barrage Division), Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh).
Admittedly they were entitled to rest and recreation allowance and they were duly paid the said allowance for the financial years 1977 and 1978. For the year 1979 they duly submitted the required applications for the grant of leave and recreation allowance. These applications were duly sanctioned vide Office Order No, 1589-73/17-E(a) dated 21-6-1979. The bail was also sanctioned by the District Accounts Officer, Muzaffargarh on 30-6-1979. Unfortunately, the said bill was received late in the Sub-Treasury Office, Kot Addu and, therefore, the payment could not be made to the respondents. They claim to have made representations and Departmental appeals to the appropriate authority but without any success. After serving grievance notice, the respondents approached the Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Allah Wasaya and Rahim Bakhsh appeared for the respondents, while the Management relied upon documents Exhs. R-I to R-11. The Labour Court vide impugned decision dated 22-7-1980 accepted the petition of the respondents, except the claim of Allah Wasaya son of Wall Muhammad, who had already availed this allowance. The appellants feeling aggrieved with the impugned decision of the Labour Court, have filed the present appeal.
2. I have heard at length the counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material available on the record.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the respondents are Civil Servants and not workmen and, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in this matter. In fact this is the only question urged before me by the parties. In the written reply the Department did not deny the right or the entitlement of the respondents, rather admitted their entitlement. The respondents in paragraph No, 2 of their grievance petition had alleged as under:- "That the employees of the Government Departments as well as the allied organization have been declared to be entitled to the payment of the recreation allowance alongwith the prescribed leave.
The petitioners were paid this allowance alongwith the leave in the years 1977 and 1978 but have not been paid the same for the year ending on 31-6-1979."
' The Department admitted the above paragraph and gave the following reply :- "(2) Yes. The regular Government employees of Government Department are entitled for Rest and Recreation leave and allowance once in a year according to Government orders. The petitioners are enjoyiag this facility since allowed by the Government. The Rest and Recreation Allowanee for the financial year ending 30-6-1979 had been paid to the petitioner listed at S. No, 2 on 15-3-1979.
He cannot, accordingly, be, paid this allowance twice during the same year. For the petitioners mentioned at S. Nos, 1, 5, 6, 7, 9 to 15 the rest and recreation leave and allowance as admissible to them was sanctioned vide Office Order No, 1589-93/17,E(a) dated 21-6-1979. The bill also although passed by District Accounts Officer, Muzaffargarh on 30-6-1979 (last day of financial year) was received back for Sub-Treasury Office Kot Mu at about 23.30 hours on 30-6-1979 when Sub- Treasury Office had closed. As such the encashment of bill could not be arranged in spite of best efforts.
' The applications of petitioners at S. Nos. 3, 4 and 8 were received late in the office of Executive Engineer, Taunsa Barrage Division, Kot Adu on 30-64979. Evidently it was not possible to fulfil all the formalities and arrange payment in one day."
' A perusal of the above reply clearly shows that the Department admitted that the respondents were already enjoying this facility. It is further stated that Allah Wasaya son of Wali Muhammad (employee, had already been paid the said allowance on 15-3-1979, whose claim has already been rejected by the Labour Court. For employees at Serial Nos. 1, 5' n to 15 the rest and recreation allowance was duly sanctioned vide Office Order No, 1589-97/17-E (a) dated 21-6-1979 and the bill was also passed by the District Accounts Officer on 30-6-1979 but unfortunately for the respondents could not be encashed because it was received late in the Sub-Treasury Office, Kot Addu. About employees at Serial Nos. 3, 4 and 8 it is stated that their applications were received late in the office of the Executive Engineer, Taunsa Barrage, Kot Addu on 30-6-1979 and, therefore, it was not possible to fulfil all the formalities and arrange payment in one day. Since the appellants have not denied the entitlement of the respondents for Rest and Recreation Allowance-rather they were paid the said allowance for the years 1977 and 1978 and for the year 1979 the Department also had sanctioned the bills and even the District Accounts Officer had cleared the bills but due to delay in reaching the said bills in the Sub-Treasury Office on 30-6-1979 (last day of financial year) the bills could not be encashed. In such a situation the Department should have helped the respondents to get the payment of the said Rest and Recreation Allowance. It is not denied that the respondents submitted the required applications within time to the appropriate authority and the Department had also sanctioned the same vide Office Order No, 1589-93/17-E (a) dated 21-6-1979.
If after 21-6-1979 any delay had occurred in processing this bill to send that first to District Accounts Office and then to the Sub-Treasury Office, the poor respondents cannot be held responsible and punished for the same. The respondents are all petty employees of the lowest grade like Baildars etc., and deserve sympathetic treatment from the Department. They should not be penalised for the delay caused in the office. Similarly the application of Imam Bakhsh son of Nama, Yar Muhammad son of Ahmad Bakhsh and Ghulam Haider son of Ghulam Hussain, respondents, could be expedited by the Department.
4. In view of the above peculiar circumstances of the case, when the Department had admitted the entitlement of the rest and recreation allowance to the respondents and had also sanctioned their bill but due to delay, encashment of the bills by the Sub-Treasury Office could not be arranged, the appellants cannot be allowed to raise any technical plea and thereby to defeat the ends of justice.
On the other hand, the appellants should have adopted some method to help the respondents in getting the payment of rest and recreation allowance already sanctioned and should not have them into unnecessary litigation. Substantial justice has already been done to the respondents by the Labour Court. The appellants cannot be allowed to undo the result of the impugned decision of the Labour Court by raising technical pleas and thereby depriving the respondents from justice already done to them by the Labour Court.
4. After taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, I am clearly of the view that the Labour Court has rightly granted the required relief to the respondents and, therefore, the impugned decision of the Labour Court requires no interference by this Tribunal.
Consequently, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.