This is an appeal filed by the appellant, Pakistan] Railways, Sukkur, against the impugned order, dated 6-11-1983, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur, who allowed the grievance petition of the respondent filed under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was working in the appellant Railways in the capacity of Guard Grade-III with Headquarters at Rohri and was residing in Railway Quarter No. 210/B of Q-27 type and that he was paying monthly rent of the said Quarter at the rate of Rs.9.75 as assessed rent. That the appellant Railways had started recovery of Rs.57 per month from the month of March, 1980 as the rent of the said quarter at the rate of 5% of his wages. The respondent filed an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before the Authority for Payment of Wages Act for the refund of the excess amount and the same was dismissed on 10-2-1982 for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal before the learned Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur which was too dismissed on 28-8-1982, but, with certain directions to the appellant Railways. In response to such directions, the appellant Railways, vide their letter, dated 9-10-1982 had informed the respondent that he was entitled to the quarter of Q-30 type but such quarter was not available with them and so they had suggested the respondent to retain the said quarter at the rate of 5$ as its rent or to vacate the same. That, though the respondent had replied to this letter, but, the appellant Railways continued to recover the rent at the rate of 5$ of his wages and also had started deducting Rs.100 per month towards the arrears. Thereafter, the respondent had served a grievance notice upon the appellant Railways on 28-2-1983 and then, on 5-5-1983, he filed a grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, before the learned Labour Court at Sukkur.
3. The case of the appellant Railways before the Labour Court was that the Railways Rules (Annexure 'A') were amended, vide Rules (Annexure 'B'), and as per these amended Rules, the rent at the rate of Rs.55 per month was to be recovered from the employees, who did not fall within the limit of the payment of Wages Act. That the respondent was drawing Rs .1,200 per month plus 55% plus D.A. As wages, therefore, he did not fall within the ambit of the Payment of Wages Act and that no injustice had been done to the respondent as the rent is being recovered from him according to Railways Rules. That, as per Railways Rules no employee can claim to be provided with quarter as a matter of right that as the respondent was given option to retain the said quarter at the rate of 5$ as the Railways was in short of accommodations, therefore, the rent was being charged from him as per Rules. Lastly, it was claimed on behalf of the appellant Railways that the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969 before the Labour Court was not maintainable in law as no right guaranteed or secured to him had been infringed, hence liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan, the learned Advocate for the appellant Railways, while, the respondent remained absent. It was contended by the appellant Railways that as the respondent was in receipt of wages more than Rs.1,000 per month, therefore, he did not come within the category of workman in terms of Ministry of Railways letter, dated 1-8-1978. Further, it is pleaded that as no right of the respondent, guaranteed or secured to him under the law, settlement or award had been infringed, therefore, he could not maintain an application under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969. Retention of a residential quarter is not a right of the respondent, specifically in view of Rule 1901 of Pakistan Railways Code for Engineering Department, wherein it is clearly provided that 'no employee has any right to be provided with quarters'. The provision of this Rule is very well-applicable in the present case. The Labour Court while deciding the appeal of this respondent under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act on 28-8-1982, on the same issues which had been re-agitated in the present case, had itself held as under: - ---I find that the appellant does not come within the category of workman and the amount of house rent so deducted from his wages is not illegal and also find that he was not competent to bring this application before the authority.--- Thus, the learned Labour Court itself contradicted and reversed its own findings while deciding the present case under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969. In view of this position, I hold that as no right guaranteed or secured to the respondent under any law, settlement or award had been infringed, therefore, he cannot maintain an application under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, and so, it is hereby dismissed.
5. For the above reasons, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.