1. ' This appeal emanates from the decision dated 4th of May, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No, 2, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for claiming T.A./D.A. With effect from 1st of May, 1977 was dismissed.
2. ' The appellants are Muawans Masons Coolies and Cleaners and have to work with the artisans.
3. They perform their duties with the artisans. As per rules the artisans are allowed T.A./D.A. And they have to remain on tour with them but they are allowed consolidated touring allowance (C. T. A.) provided they remain on tour for more than 20 days in a month. Their case is that since they have not to work independently but work with the artisans, they do not get anything since the artisans remain on tour for less than on 20 days. There is another rule which is that the artisans and the appellants are not entitled to any T.A/D.A. Or C. T. A. If they make tour within a radious of 10 miles and not more than that P. W.-I made a statement in the learned lower Court that they made tour within 10 miles radius. If in any month, the appellants happen to go on tour within the radius of 10 miles, they will not be entitled any T.A./D.A. Or C. T. A. But since according to the rules they are entitled to C. T. A. If they make tour beyond the radius of 10 miles for more than 20 days, they are entitled to the C. T. A.
4. ' The learned lower Court appears to have not understood the case. The real dispute between the parties is with regard to the entitlement to T. A/D. A. Or in the alternative to C. T. A. It has not been denied that the appellants have not to work independently and have to work with the artisans. No oral or documentary proof has been produced on behalf of the Railway to controvert the case of the appellants that they do not work independently. Since the appellants work with the artisans the period of tour for them and for the artisans should be uniform so that the appellants also could get C. T. A. The instructions issued by the authority are absurd being against public policy and natural justice. This is not the case of the respondent that according to the terms and conditions of service the appellants have to make tour at their own expenses. Neither, in any Government department nor even in any private establishment, there is any rule that the employees should go on tour and should not claim T.A./D.A. Of consolidated tour allowance. For a period of 20 days a month, the appellants have to remain on tour but they get nothing ; it is, therefore, difficult for them to make their both ends meet in the scanty pay and to incur expenses of travelling from their own pocket.
5. Such a condition of service has not been heard of anywhere. The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to advance any argument except this that the rules are to be followed as they are. I totally agreed that the rules as they are, are to be followed and the Courts have not to legislate the law, but the Courts have to follow those departmental instructions which are reasonable and are not against public policy and demands of natural justice. The instruction issued by the respondent that the appellants cannot get C. T. A. If they do not remain on tour for more than 20 days is absolutely unreasonable and against the policy. Of course, if the appellants had to work independently, it would have been feasible for them to make tour for more or less 20 days to claim C. T. A. Since they have to work with the artisans, there will be no justification for them to remain on tour after the artisans with whom they are attached return to the Headquarters after their completing this tour. Since there is no rule that the appellants are not entitled to T.A./D.A., they are entitled to C. T. A. Only.
6. ' As a result of the observations made above I direct the respondent to allow C. T. A. To the appellants for the period they remain on tour with the artisans irrespective of the fact whether it is 20 days or more or less. However, the claim of the appellants to T.A./D.A. Is rejected. Accepting the appeal, the impugned decision of the learned lower Court is set aside and grievance petition of the appellants accepted to the extent as directed above.