' The appeal captioned above challenges the decision, dated 6-2-1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted.
2. The respondent is a Goods Clerk working as a Van Sorter. He admittedly as Van Sorter belongs to the running staff and is entitled to mileage allowance. The dispute is about the rate of mileage allowance. The respondent is being paid the said allowance at the rate of Rs,4 per hundred miles but the respondent claims that he is entitled to the said allowance at the rate at which the guards are getting. No rule has been either shown by the respondent or cited by the learned lower Court to the effect that Van Sorters are entitled to the mileage allowance according to the rate at which Guards are entitled. In Exh.P.5 the rate of mileage allowance for the Van Sorter is given at Rs,4 per hundred miles and at the same rate the respondent is getting the said allowance. This rate was fixed vide Exh.P.5 in 1973. The respondent has argued that the appellant has increased the rate of mileage allowance for guards and other employees of the running staff but has refused to enhance the rate for the Van Sorters. He also says that in view of the ever-increasing dearness the rate of mileage allowance should be allowed to the Van Sorters according to the rate at which the guards are getting the mileage allowance. There is no denying the fact that the dearness has increased considerably since 1973 but only the appellant can increase the rates. The Courts have to decide the cases according to the rules. Since according to the letter Exh.P.5, the rate is Rs,4 per hundred miles, the respondent has no case. If the appellant refuses to enhance the rate of mileage allowance, an industrial dispute may be raised by the C.B.A. But in a petition under section 25-A enhancement cannot be claimed without any right guaranteed by any settlement, award or law.
The learned lower Court ignored this fact that there was neither any settlement nor award nor law under which the respondent could successfully claim enhancement of rate or to claim mileage allowance at the rate at which the guards are getting the same and thus fell in error in allowing the grievance petition.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed.