' The appeals captioned above challenge the decision dated 29-6-1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labor Court No, 2, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of Siraj Din and 57 others (herein called the respondents) was partly accepted directing the General Manager (Signal & Telecom) Pakistan Railways and the Works Manager, Signal Workshops, P.R. Lahore (hereinafter described as the appellants) to continue to pay to the respondents washing allowance and rejected the prayer for the supply of overall drills.
2. Since both the appeals emerge from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
3. The case of the respondents so far as washing allowance is concerned is that for the last 15 years they are being paid the said allowance. The case with regard to the overall drills is also on the same ground.
4. So far as washing allowance is concerned learned counsel for the appellants has argued that according to the notification the washing allowance is allowable to persons serving upto NSP Nos. 1 to 4 but since the respondents were in Scale No, 5 they are not entitled to the same. According to the notification referred to by the learned counsel the other existing conditions regulating the payment of this kind of allowances were ordered to continue to apply meaning thereby that the previous notification was not amended in toto but to the extent of adding that washing allowance would be at the rate of Rs, 15 per month with effect from 1-7-1981. In the previous notification washing allowance was allowed to liveried staff at Rs, 3 per month with effect from 1-3-1972 and at Rs, 5 per month with effect from 7-6-1975 only. By the amended notification the said kind ' of allowance was allowed at the rate of Rs. 15 per month with effect from 1-7-1981. In the previous notification it was said that the persons who had been switched over to grade No, 5 on account of completing their substantive scale would also be entitled to washing allowance. The previous notification is No, R-72-PC-I/76, dated 31-5-1973. Since the provision that the washing allowance would be admissible to those persons who on account of completing the substantive scale had been switched over to Scale No,5 was not amended by the new notification referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants, the respondents are entitled to the said allowance and the learned lower Court has rightly issued the direction in this respect. The appeal of the Railways, therefore, has no merits.
5. So far as the overall drills are concerned the same have been disallowed by the learned lower Court on the ground that as mentioned in the letter Exh. R3 they cannot be allowed as per Dress Regulations Book of 1960. No doubt in Exh. R-3 it is so mentioned but neither before the learned lower Court nor before this Court the Dress Regulations Books, of 1960 or any copy of the relevant provision contained in it has been produced. It is the function of the Courts to examine and interpret the provision of rule and since the said Regulations have not been placed on the file it is difficult to say whether actually the overall drills which were being supplied to the respondents for 15 long years is prohibited. The General Manager had issued orders contained in Exh. P-1 for the supply of the same and the District Controller of Stores who issued Exh. R-3 being under the General Manager could not undo the direction given in Exh. P-1. Even in Exh. R-3 the relevant regulation which may be contained in Dress Regulations Book of 1960 is not reproduced. In Exh. R-3 the Works Manager, Signal Shops was asked by the District Controller of Stores to approach the Uniform Committee Pakistan Railways, Headquarters Office, Lahore for obtaining the order for the supply of overall drills blue. I would again say that in the presence of the General Manager order contained in Exh.P-1 the District Controller of Stores could not direct the Works Manager to approach the uniform committee. The uniform committee must be working under the General Manager and when the latter had issued instructions to supply the uniform it was not necessary to get any order from the uniform committee. An amenity which the respondents were enjoying for the last 15 years could not be discontinued without any reason because it had become a vested right and could be disallowed if it was prohibited by any rule.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has tried to argue that the grievance petition of the respondents was time barred but since no such objection can be found in the written statement it is too late to raise such an objection at the arguments stage. Even in the memo of appeal such an objection cannot be found.
7. As a result the appeal of the Railways is dismissed and the appeal of the respondents is accepted and the appellant is directed to issue overall drills to the respondents as was being supplied for the last 15 years.