1. ' The brief facts are that the petitioner was employed by the Pakistan Railways as a Crane Jamadar on 22nd January, 1975. He states that, on 23rd January, 1975, he was asked to work as Fitter Mistry.
2. The monthly wages of a Crane Jamadar are Rs, 195 and that of a Fitter Mistry are Rs, 275. It is admitted case that the petitioner was never paid the salary, which was payable to a Fitter Mistry, and it is also admitted case that, at no point of time, was any order issued, appointing, or, promoting the petitioner as Fitter Mistry. It seems that the petitioner thought he was entitled to the salary as Fitter Mistry for the reason that be was performing the functions of Fitter Mistry. He made demands, but the same were not acceeded to, so that he made an application to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, claiming the differences, in salary. This application was made in 1976, and, by an order, dated 15th January, 1978, the same was dismissed. The case set up by the respondents before the said Authority was that the petitioner was a Crane Jamadar, and not a Fitter Mistry. An appeal was filed before the Sind Labour Court at Karachi, and by an order, dated 1st July, 1979 the case was remanded to the Authority, with a direction that an opportunity should be given to the Pakistan Railways to produce evidence in rebuttal. On remand, the case was again put before the Authority, and, by an order, dated 2nd March, 1981 the claim of the petitioner was allowed, and Pakistan Railways were directed to deposit the differences in the salary. From the tenor of the order, it would appear that the Authority had asked Pakistan Railways to produce some documents, but, since such documents were not produced, an adverse order was passed. Pakistan Railways, thereafter, again filed an appeal before the Sind Labour Court, and, by an order, dated 24th September, 1981, the case was again remanded to the Authority for decision, with an observation that the documents, which had been summoned from the Pakistan Railways were very material, since the non-production was likely to shift the burden of proof wrongly on the other party. The matter once again came before the Authority, and he framed the following single issue :-
(1) Whether the applicant is entitled to the claim he has preferred or to any part thereof ?"
3. ' Evidence was recorded, and the petitioner admitted in his cross-examination that he never received any promotion letter, but he worked as Fitter Mistry from 23rd January, 1975. An Enquiry Report was also placed before the Authority, which showed that the Department had held an enquiry at which, besides the petitioner, several other witnesses, including one Naushay Ali, had been examined. From the side of the petitioner, no evidence was adduced. However, the Authority allowed the application, and awarded to the petitioner ten times compensation for deduction of his wages. A sum of Rs, 10,472 was directed to be paid to the petitioner.
4. ' Pakistan Railways, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Vtb Sind Labour Court. This appeal was allowed on the process of reasoning that the Enquiry Officer had given findings that the petitioner had not passed the trade test of Fitter Mistry and was not qualified for such appointment. In regard to Pakistan Railways not having produced some document, the Presiding Officer held that, since there was no evidence of the promotion of the petitioner, he was satisfied that the Pakistan Railways were justified in not allowing him salary. A Revision Application came to be heard by the Sind Labour Tribunal, and such Revision Application was also decided adversely to the petitioner.
5. ' On a reading of the impugned orders, we find that the only question, that required determination, was, whether the petitioner had been duly and legally appointed as a Fitter Mistry, so as to entitle him to higher wages. On that score, the admitted position is that no order, appointing the petitioner as Fitter Mistry, had ever been passed. It is also admitted that, at no point of time, had the petitioner received salary as Fitter Mistry. The case of the petitioner, however, is that he had been working as Fitter Mistry, and was, therefore, entitled to wages as were payable to Fitter Mistry. Mr. A. T.
6. Mahmood has produced before us the copies of the statements made by the petitioner, and other employees of Pakistan Railways in connection with the enquiry that followed the demand of the petitioner. Mr. Muhammad Ahmad has persuaded us to peruse these papers. The petitioner's statement before such enquiry was that he had been working as Fitter Mistry to the knowledge of Naushay Ali. But, on the other hand, Abdul Hakeem made a statement that the petitioner was working under Fitter Naushay Ali. Naushay All was himself examined, and he did not state that the petitioner was working as Fitter Mistry. On the contrary, he stated that the petitioner was responsible for supervision of the cranes. He was asked a question, whether the petitioner did any other work in addition to the supervision of cranes, and he replied that the petitioner supervised the working of the Helpers employed on the cranes, and the Clearing Section. These replies would clearly show that there were different versions in regard to the petitioner actually working as a Fitter Mistry. To that extent, an enquiry was held by the Officers of the Pakistan Railways, who held that the petitioner was not even qualified for such appointment. Reference may be made to the order of Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, dated 17th October, 1982.
7. We are of the view that, on facts, a reasonable view has been taken by the Enquiry Officer of the Pakistan Railways, and such view has been rightly upheld by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court and the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal. In any case, disputed questions of fact arise in this matter, and this Court would rarely embark upon a process of appreciation of disputed evidence, or, sifting of conflicting versions. In any case, the present case is not fit for such exercise.
8. ' The learned Advocate has invited our attention to paragraph 12 in the Advance Chapter No, 1 of Personnel Manual issued by the erstwhile North Western Railways. This paragraph relates to pay of officiating Railway servants. There is nothing to show that any order in favour of the petitioner, appointing him as officiating Fitter Mistry, was issued, but, in case the petitioner thinks that he should be paid officiating salary, he could make a separate application before the relevant authorities.
9. ' We see no substance in this petition, which we dismiss in limine.