DECISION ' These six appeals are directed against a Single order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VII at Sukkur, dated 22-12-1988 whereby grievance Application No, 43 of 1986 filed by applicant Mustajab Hussain and Grievance Application No, 42 of 1986 filed by Applicant Tanveer Haider Zaidi were decided in favour of the two applicants. Divisional Superintendent Railways and Divisional Personnel Officer Pakistan Railways filed Appeals Nos. 59 and 60 against the impugned Order. One Muhammad Ismail who was respondent in the said petitions has also filed Appeals Nos.
53 and 54 against the said impugned order. One Abdul Razzak and 4 others have filed Appeals Nos.
25 and 26 of 1989 against the impugned order. I intend to dispose of these six appeals by this single decision.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent as well as appellant except the Divisional Superintendent and Divisional Personnel Officer are Ticket Collectors in the Sukkur Division of Pakistan Railways. In 1982 seniority list of the Ticket Collectors Grade-I and II was issued by the Divisional Personnel Officer in which applicant Mustajab Hussain was placed at Sr. No 94, one Muneer Ahmed was placed at Sr. No, 95 and applicant Tanveer Haider Zaidi was placed at Sr. No,
96. Muneer Ahmed filed grievance petition claiming seniority over certain Ticket Collectors who were shown senior to him in the seniority list. His grievance petition was finally disposed of by this Tribunal on 7-11-1985 in Appeal No, SUIT-137 of 1984 whereby he was awarded seniority against the Ticket Collectors placed at and above Sr. No, 82 in the seniority list. In pursuance to the order of the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, the Divisional Superintendent issued revised seniority list wherein said Muneer Ahmed was placed at Sr. No, 81-A after Ticket Collector at Sr. No, 81 in the seniority list. Aggrieved by this revision of seniority list said applicants Mustajab Hussain and Tanveer Haider Zaidi filed grievance petitions claiming seniority over Muneer Ahmed as well as other Ticket Collectors who were placed at Serial Nos. 82 to 93 in the seniority list. Under the impugned order the said applicants were granted seniority over other Ticket Collectors who were placed at Sr. Nos. 82 to 93 but their claim against Muneer Ahmad was rejected. They did not file an appeal against the rejection of their claim against Muneer Ahmad.
3. I have heard Mr. M. A. Rashid, appearing for the appellants in Appeals Nos. 25 and 26 of 1989, Mr. Shabbir Ahmad for the Divisional Superintendent and Divisional Personnel Officer. Appellant Mohammad Ismail in person, Mr. Mehmood Habib Ullah for the respondents, Tanveer Haider Zaidi and Mustajab Hussain and also have gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
4. I will first dispose of certain legal objections raised by the parties. Admittedly appellants Abdul Razzak Shah, Mohammad Nawaz and Shafi Mohammad are placed in the Seniority List at Sr. Nos.
78, 81 and 64. They were senior according to the Seniority List to applicants Mustajab Hussain and Tanveer Haider Zaidi and even after the impugned order their seniority has not been affected. As such they cannot be considered as aggrieved person and have no right to file appeals. Their appeals arc, therefore, dismissed. However the appeals of co-appellants Ali Murad, Mundar Khan in these two appeals would be decided on merits.
5. The main contention of Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan and Mr. M. A. Rashid is, that the grievance petitions filed by the aforesaid two applicants were time-barred. Applicant Tanveer Haider Zaidi in the seniority list was junior to Muneer Ahmed, who was at Sr. No, 95 whereas Tanveer Haider Zaidi at Sr. No,
96. Seniority of Tanveer Haider Zaidi was, therefore, not affected by the revised seniority given to Muneer Ahmed. His cause of action, if any, against respondent or appellants whose names appear in the seniority list at Sr. Nos. 82 to 94 accrued to him in 1982, when Seniority List was first published. The revised seniority list did not give him any fresh cause of action. His grievance petition is obviously time-barred. There is no application moved by him or reasons shown by him for condoning this inordinate delay. It may be pointed out that he served grievance notice upon the employer in 1986, viz. After nearly four years of the accrual of the alleged cause of action, if any.
According to section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969, the grievance notice has to be given within three months of the date of cause of action. The grievance petition, therefore, filed by Tanveer Haider Zaidi was not maintainable as it was time-barred and, therefore the impugned order of learned Labour Court revising his seniority is set aside on that ground and the three appeals filed against him are allowed.
6. It is submitted by Messrs Shabbir Ahmed Awan and M.A. Rashid, that due to revision of seniority list applicant Mustajab Hussain had cause of action against the respondent Muneer Ahmed only, against whom his claim has been rejected by the learned Labour Court and he has not filed any appeal against rejection of his claim of seniority with regard to Muneer Ahmed. It is further submitted that so far as other Ticket Collectors are concerned their seniority vis-a-vis applicant Mustajab Hussain was decided in 1982 and remained unchanged even after the revised seniority list. They contend that the revision of seniority list, therefore, did not give any fresh cause of action to applicant Mustajab Hussain with regard to his seniority vis-a-vis the other appellants or other respondents. If he had any cause of action, he should have given grievance notice within three months of the publication of seniority list of 1982 and should have also filed grievance petition within the prescribed period under section 25-A of I.R.O. It is further submitted that Mustajab Hussain had not even filed appeal against the seniority list of 1982 and he cannot make a grievance of seniority fixed in 1982 by grievance notice or grievance petition in 1986 viz. After four years.
7. Mr. Mehmood Habibullah, learned counsel for Mustajab Hussain has submitted that the Railway Authorities are not aggrieved parties and, therefore, appeals filed by them are not maintainable. I am afraid I am not able to agree with him. The relief was sought by Mustajab Hussain against Railway Authorities whose order fixing the seniority has been set aside by the learned Labour Court and as such they have right to file the appeal.
8. It is further submitted by Mr. Mehmood Habibullah that person who signed the reply statement on behalf of the Railway Authorities had not been examined therefore that reply statement cannot be considered and the case of Mustajab Hussain stood unrebutted. In his support he has relied upon certain decisions of this Tribunal. However in those decisions this Tribunal, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in PLD 1972 Supreme Court 25, had held, that where the signatory of the written statement, which is not verified on oath, is not examined, such written statement cannot be considered as evidence. However, this does not preclude the Railway Authorities from leading evidence in rebuttal of the case of Mustajab Hussain. Furthermore when applicant seeks any relief from the Court, the burden of proof is upon him to prove his case and he cannot rely upon the weakness of the defence. In the instant case one of the respondents Muhammad Ismail had filed reply statement and examined himself on oath and he also filed appeal against the impugned order. Similarly Railway Authorities have also examined their witness Mushtaq Ahmed. Both Mohammad Ismail as well as Mushtaq Ahmed, in their affidavit in evidence have raised the plea that the grievance application was time-barred.
9. The admitted facts on the record clearly show that no fresh cause of action accrued to Mustajab Hussain due to revision of Seniority List, except against Muneer Ahmed, against whom his petition was dismissed. He had no fresh cause against the remaining respondents or appellants and he could not challenge their seniority, which remained unchanged in the revised seniority list, after nearly four years whereas to get relief under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969, the grievance notice had to be given within three months. The grievance petition of Mustajab Hussain as against appellants/respondents other than Muneer Ahmed was also time- barred and was liable to be dismissed on that account. As already pointed out his grievance against the seniority of Muneer Ahmed was rejected by the learned Labour Court which attained finality as he did not file appeal against the said order.
10. In view of the above discussion all the six appeals are allowed and the impugned order of learned Labour Court is set aside, and the seniority as it existed before impugned order was passed by the learned Labour Court is restored and confirmed.
11. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.