' The grievance petition by Aftab Ahmad Siddiqi, Driver, was filed before the Labour Court on 15-2- 1983. The grievance petition was dismissed by the learned Labour Court No,l. Karachi, on the point of limitation by the impugned order, dated 28-7-1983. This is an appeal against the said order of the learned Labour Court dismissing the grievance application.
2. The facts are that the appellant, Aftab Ahmad Siddiqi, was a driver and he drove Bolan Mail from Karachi Cantonment to Kotri on 1-6-1980. At Kotri, the Fireman was sent by the appellant to the Guard to collect the Form L-II. The driver was asked to move the locomotive to the adjacent Line so that the fresh engine may be tagged with the Bolan Mail for onward journey. It so happened that the fresh engine failed on account of the vacuum trouble and it caused delay. The delay was attributed to the appellant and was charge-sheeted on 26-6-1980 with the allegations that he blocked the Railway Line. The reply to the above charge-sheet was submitted by the appellant and was rejected by the authorities. He was awarded punishment of W.I.T. For one year (i,e, stoppage of increment for one year). He was also suspended from 7-6-1980 to 6-7-1980. The enquiry was held under Railway Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975. It appears that the appellant had appealed against the decision on 13-10-1982, and he was given the final reply wherein it was held that only the period of suspension with effect from 7-6-1980 to 6-7-1980 was to be treated as 'leave due'. It appears that the punishment of stoppage of one increment was waived. Notice was given as aggrieved person under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, to the respondents on 13-10-1982. No reply was received by the appellant.
3. The impugned order has held the grievance petition of the appellant to be time-barred as the appellant did not file the copy of the charge-sheet, reply to the charge-sheet, the impugned order imposing penalty of censure and the appeal filed by him against the said orders. The Lower Court, therefore, held that the letter, dated 13-10-1982, cannot be treated as the final reply in response to the appeal filed by the appellant. Therefore, it held the application be premature and not maintainable.
4. I have heard Aftab Ahmad Siddiqi and Mr. Abdul Aziz, Advocate for the respondent Railways. The learned Labour Court has not counted the letter, dated 13-10-1982, to be final letter received by the appellant in the course of his entire enquiry. Although the appellant has averred that the enquiry was held against him and no reply was given to him excluding the last letter. It appears that the enquiry which was held under the Railways Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975, ended finally in the words of the letter which is that "the period of the suspension was counted as leave due". Thus, the grievance is only in respect of the period of suspension being treated as leave due to the appellant. The observation and the findings of the Lower Court that the grievance application was time-barred as it was decided, was wrong. The intimation of the enquiry which culminated in the letter, dated 13-10-1982, was the basis of the grievance application and the grievance was only for treating the suspension period as 'leave due'. Therefore, the grievance application was not time-barred.
5. But, after hearing the arguments of the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this appeal has no force even though the impugned order is set aside. The appellant has not suffered substantial loss or substantial infliction of the punishment. The punishment of censure was also deleted and instead suspension period was counted as leave due. This was mild punishment. As regards the allegations made against the appellant that he unduly detained the engine to be dislodged to facilitate the fresh engine to be attached with the wagons of the Bolan Mail. The explanation given by the appellant is that the fresh engine has failed. This explanation was not accepted by the Enquiry Officer, and, therefore, he imposed the punishment of the censure.
Subsequently, in appeal the punishment of censure was waived and the suspension period was counted as 'leave due'. There is nothing much to interfere with the orders of the Enquiry Officer under Efficiency and Discipline Rules and on account of this, there is no force in the grievance application which is dismissed for the reasons different from the reasons of the impunged order.
6. However, before parting with the order, I would recommend to the authorities to become more soft with the appellant and re-consider the period of suspension to be a period of 'leave due'.
7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.