DECISION This appeal is agitated against the order of the Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, dated 20-4-1985, whereby he had dismissed the grievance petition of Daroo son of Wanyoo
2. Appellant Daroo was Railway employee as a Gangsman. He was said to have been appointed on 15-3-1945, as a Gangsman and was promoted as a Keyman in the year 1955. He claims to have been injured in the year 1965 while he was on duty and he was operated upon at Civil Hospital Sanghar. After his recovery from the ailment/injury, he reported for duty at Sakrand and also at Nawabshah. But, he was not paid compensation for the loss of his one finger nor, even, he was paid wages or taken on duty. However, on 30-1-1981, he was taken as a Gangsman and posted in Gang No.8 of Nawabshah. Accordingly, the appellant approached the authority under Payment of Wages Act on 28-12-1983, under section 15 of the said Act. But, unfortunately, he was disallowed duty from 18-2-1984. He, therefore, filed his grievance petition. His prayer was made in the following terms aTo direct the defendant to allow duty as Keyman under P.W.I. Sakrand (b)To direct the defendant to pay wages for the period January 1984 of a sum of Rs.700.
(c)To direct the defendant to prepare accident report of accident occurred in 1965 which lost phalanx of ring finger of left hand which was lost during duty hours.
(d)To direct the defendant to pay the back benefits with allowing him duty.---
3. The respondents while denying the averments made in the petition pleaded that the appellant was appointed as Gangsman on 20-2-1945, and was promoted as Keyman one31-5-1956 and was discharged from service on 20-11-1964, because of his unauthorized absence since 16-2-1964.
Accordingly, no question of his sustaining injury on duty in 1965 could be proved as he ceased to be the Railways employee, as early as 1964. It has been further pleaded that he was appointed as a substitute Gangsman against feave vacancy in different gangs and so he worked firstly from 23-1- 1982 to 14-3-1982 and thereafter, from 24-2-1983 to 20-2-1984 against leave vacancies in different gangs, and on expiry of the leave vacancy he was discharged. It is urged that he never worked as a regular employee and so his application is not maintainable and besides this, his application itself is barred by limitation.
4. Appellant filed his own affidavit and also of one Soomar whereas, the Railways examined Mukhtar Ahmad in its evidence.
5. I have heard the arguments of respective counsels in this case. The appellant in his main petition has claimed to be himself as a regular employee since 1945. He claims to have sustained injury in 1965. According to him, he was taken on duty after his recovery on 30-1-1981. Since he was not paid wages as Keyman, he approached the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act on 28-12-1983.
He was disallowed from duty on 18-2-1984. In his grievance notice, dated 3-4-1984, he has pleaded that he was appointed as Gangsman on 15-3-1945, was promoted as Keyman in 1967; was injured while on duty in the year 1965, and was sent to Sanghar Hospital and was allowed duty in 1981 in Gang No. 7, Sakrand, he was paid compensation and finally his prayer was that he be allowed duty.
Now, comparing his grievance petition and grievance notice, there is a lot of contradictions.
Grievance petition is more exaggerative of his grievance notice. In this way the factual position pleaded in the grievance notice is quite contrary, rather completely different to what has been urged in his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969. If he was injured in 1965, there was no question of his promotion as a Keyman in 1967, when he was taken on duty in 1981. How was he promoted as a Keyman in 1967, is not substantiated either by his witness or by the Railway authorities. It appears that he is a confused man and does not know what he says. His witness Soomar has given complete go-bye to the appellant. The appellant also could not produce any documentary evidence in support of his contentions. On the contrary, the Railways Department has asserted that the appellant had been discharged in the year 1964 because of his long unauthorized absence. Accordingly, the grievance petition in relation to his sustaining injury and then putting him of the duty would certainly be time barred
6. The appellant is also not aware when he was actually re-employed as he has given a number of dates as also the years. Sometimes he says that he was taken on duty in the year 1981 and sometimes, he urges that he was re-employed in 1983-. Similarly, at one stage he says that he worked upto 18-2-1984, and at a subsequent stage, he asserts that he was refused duty from 21-2- 1984. The stand of the Railways, however, is that he was employed as substitute Gangsman in various Gangs from time to time only against leave vacancies and as soon as such leave vacancies ceased to exist he stood discharged. Considering these facts, the Labour Court has dismissed his grievance petition. It was quite in consonance with the evidence on record and I would dismiss this appeal accordingly.