' The appellant, who was employed as a Salman in the Pakistan Railways, applied on 12th May, 1980 for L. P. R., with immediate effect. Before the L. P. R. Was sanctioned by the competent authority, he made repeated representations withdrawing his request for L. P. R., but the Railway authorities declined to entertain these representations and the appellant was forced to proceed on L. P. R. With effect from 18th June, 1980. The appellant challenged this action of the Railway authorities before the learned VIth Labour Court, Hyderabad, but his grievance petition was rejected on the ground that according to the rules applicable to the Railway servants, once an application for proceeding on L. P. R, has been made, it cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. The appellant has accordingly come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. It was conceded by Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the rules no doubt do not envisage the withdrawal of an application for L. P. R., once it has been made. He, however, contended that in fact the appellant, who is illiterate, had never intended to proceed on L.
P. R. But wanted to avail of normal earned leave due to family circumstances, but the person who wrote out the application played fraud upon the appellant and instead of the application required by the appellant made an application for L. P. R., which the appellant innocently signed without realizing the fraud played upon him. In support of this plea, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the representation made by the appellant on 29th November, 1980, to the Railway authorities where he had detailed the circumstances in which he had been duped. I regret that I find no substance in this contention. Before making the representation relied upon by Mr. Fasahat Hussain the appellant had written 2 letters to the Railway authorities seeking to withdraw his application for the grant of L. P. R. These applications are dated 17th May, 1980 and 7th June, 1980. In both these applications, the appellant has admitted the position that he had submitted an application for grant of I., P. R., but requested that he should be allowed to withdraw the same because he realized that he had to support his children. It is thus clear that the plea of the appellant that he had signed the L. P. R. Application in the bona fide belief that it was an application for grant of earned leave is not only false but clearly an afterthought. Apparently the appellant had an afterthought about proceeding on L. P. R. When he learnt that he had to vacate the Railway quarter which he was occupying and hence realized that it was better for him to continue in service than to proceed on L. P. R.
3. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine.