' The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, Rais Ahmad Khan claimed compensation of Rs,5,000 and the salary from 16-12-1971 to 4-6-1974 when he joined West Pakistan Railways after having left East Pakistan Railways on the ground that persons similarly placed had been granted these concessions.
2. A report was called for. It was stated in the report by the Railway authorities that the persons similarly placed like the petitioner have not been paid a sum of Rs,5,000 as compensation nor the salary for the period from 16-12-1971 to the date of joining service. When the petition came up for hearing on 5-7-1980 nobody had appeared for the petitioner but in view of the report it was observed that "No further action is called for. The petition is dismissed." The petitioner filed C.M. 3/81 for restoration of the petition. It was restored vide order dated 7-3-1982. When it came up for hearing on 30-9-1986 it was observed that "None was present on the last date of hearing either viz. 17-9-1986. Dismissed for non-prosecution." The petitioner again filed an application bearing C.M.
No,2401/86 for restoration. Notice was ordered to be issued in this application. During these proceedings the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision of Ombudsman for directing certain payments. The counsel for the respondent authorities submitted that the case related to Rawalpindi Division. However, he sought adjournment to re-examine the case. On 25-1- 1989 when the case came up for hearing, the counsel for the petitioner was not present. However, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that a sum of Rs,1,000 as compensation had been paid to the petitioner in accordance with decision of the Ombudsman. The case was ordered to be fixed after notice to the learned counsel for the petitioner. When it came up for hearing on 22-2- 1989 it was observed that "It is doubtful whether the Writ Petition is competent or not. If the petitioner is a workman as the learned counsel states then he has to go to the Labour Court. If, on the other hand, he claims to be a civil servant as the learned counsel takes this stand, then he has to go to the Service Tribunal. Learned counsel requests for time to argue on the question of jurisdiction. In course of time petition has come up for hearing today.
3. There are two questions to be attended to. Firstly, whether the writ twice over for non- appearance on 30-9-1986 can be restored and secondly whether the writ petition, in the circumstances of the case, is competent? From the narration of facts above and the order-sheet it would appear that the petition was being prosecuted indifferently. On various occasions none had appeared for the petitioner. On the day the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution i.e. 30-9- 1986 it was observed that "None was present on the last date of hearing either viz. 17-9-1986". If the petitioner or his counsel repeatedly absents himself and the petition is dismissed for non- prosecution, then it can hardly be restored with any justification. From the statement of facts made above, it will also be noticed that the petitioner's claim of compensation and salary for a certain period on the ground that others similarly placed had been paid this amount, was refuted by the Railway authorities when they submitted a report that no person placed like the petitioner had been paid either compensation or the salary for a certain period when he was not working with the Railway Department. Thus there can be hardly any grievance left as far as these payments are concerned. Contention now taken is that the petitioner was a workman and since he has been retired, he cannot go to the Labour Court, is without merit for the reason that if the petitioner had a grievance while he was a workman and had been wrongly dealt with, he can go before the Labour Court for necessary relief.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the application for restoration as well as the writ petition are dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.