Zulfiqar Haider and other 127 petitioners are Class-IV employees of the Railways Department. They are designated as "Bridge Field, Staff" and are posted with their headquarter at Multan. The nature of their duty is such that they have to be absent from their head--quarters for more than 20 days in a month and for that they used to draw consolidated travelling allowance as laid down under rules 211 and 212 of the Pakistan Railway Establishment Code Volume I. It so happened that Railway Board considering that the grant of consolidated travelling allowance had resulted . In false economy and down-right wasteful expenditure, decided that the railway servants entitled to draw permanent/consolidated travelling allowance should in future draw Daily Travelling Allowance under the ordinary miles. This decision was made applicable to the petitioners as well, and was communicated to all Divisional Superintendents by the General Manager/Personnel under its letter No. 39-H/C/1-VII (Section III) dated 8-12-1982. Being aggrieved by this order the petitioners have filed this constitutional petition challenging its validity and prayed that it may be declared illegal, ultra vies as having passed without lawful authority.
2. Written comments from respondent No. 5 were requisitioned which have been placed on record.
As the petitioners had also sought interim relief, therefore, a notice was issued to respondent No. 5.
Almost all the respondents were, however, represented, through their counsel, at the hearing.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents raised following preliminary objections as to the maintainability of this petition :
(a) That the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked by the petitioners who are "workmen" for the purposes of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as they have alternate remedy under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Labour Court
(b) That the United Union of Pakistan Railway Workers which is the Collective Bargaining Agent for Open Line Establishment, in its representative character, has already approached the National Industrial Relations Commission through filing a petition under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, wherein the same order, impugned in this writ petition, has been challenged and the next date of hearing before the National Industrial Relations Commission has been fixed as 10- 3-1983, after this prayer for interim relief had been declined.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has conceded that the petitio--ners are "workmen" and. They have got a remedy under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Labour Court, but stated that the remedy before Labour Court being not a "convenient remedy", the petitioners have chosen to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore this petition is fully competent and maintainable. Reliance has been placed on Kh. Ijaz and Muhammad Siddique Nasim v. Govern--ment of Punjab etc, (1980 NLR Service 173). As to the second .Preliminary objection he replied, that no doubt, the order impugned in this writ petition has already been challenged by the United Union of Pakistan Railways Workers (Collective Bargaining Agent Open Line Establishment) through its President before the National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad, yet the petitioners can seek their remedy independently.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel with care and also perused the material available on the file. The authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly distinguishable on facts. The Labour Court below in which the petitioners have an alternate remedy is stationed at Multan and they can easily approach that forum without being put to any soot of inconvenience or hardship.
6. About the second objection, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petition under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordi--nance, 1969, filed by the Collective Bargaining Agent for Open Line Establishment of Pakistan Railways Workers, before the Industrial Relations Commissioner is not maintainable and, therefore, the petitioners can seek their remedy independent of those proceedings. Since this petition is being disposed of on the basis of the first preliminary objection,. Therefore, I do not feel called upon to decide this objection. In these circum3tances, I uphold the preliminary objection mentioned at (a) above raised by the learned counsel for the respondents and find that this petition is not maintainable. The result is that this petition fails and is dismissed in limine.