This judgment shall dispose of eleven appeals bearing Nos. Lhr---457/93-Punjab to Lhr-467/93- Punjab by the Pakistan Railways from the decision of the Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore dated 17th of August, 1993, whereby eleven grievance petitions filed by the respondents were accepted and the appellants were directed to pay them daily allowance for the period they stayed at Karachi for the purpose of training.
2. The respondents are the employees of the Pakistan Railways performing duties directly connected with the charge of moving-trains. They were deputed to get training in diesel from the Diesel Training School, Karachi. On return after completing their training, they submitted TA. Bills claiming daily allowance for the period they stayed at Karachi. When they did not get any response, they, after service of grievance notices, filed grievance petitions asserting the above claim.
3. The appellants contested the grievance petitions controverting the claim of the respondents.
According to them, since the respondents were in receipt of running allowance, they were not, under the rules, entitled to daily allowance for the period of their stay at Karachi. They raised legal objections also to the effect that the grievance petitions were barred by time and that since the respondents were not workmen, the-grievance petitions filed by them were not competent.
4. All the grievance petitions were consolidated. The evidence was recorded in the grievance petition re: Muhammad Hanif and others v. The Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore and another. On behalf of the respondents two witnesses were examined namely, Mirza Muhammad Hanif, a Driver as P.W.1 and Nazim Hussain, a Head Clerk as P.W. 2, while in rebuttal, Ghulam Nabi, as Upper Division Clerk of the Bill Section and Ashfaq Ahmad Mir, an Auditor entered the witness-box as R.W.1 and R.W.2, respectively. The learned Labour Court after appraising the evidence, upheld the claim of the respondents and vide its impugned decision accepted the grievance petitions. Hence these appeals.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The respondents based their claim on rule 337 of the Pakistan Railways I Establishment Code, Volume 1. It provides that when a railway servant is selected to undergo a course of training, he may draw daily allowance for halts at the place of training according to the prescribed scale. The only exception contained in the rule is with regard to probationers or persons in receipt of a stipend or such railway servants who are granted free messing or messing allowance in lieu of daily allowance under special orders.
This exception admittedly does not apply to the respondents. In view of this rule, the claim preferred by the respondents is not invalid.
6. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon rule 221 ibid. It lays down that railway servants performing duties directly connected with the charge of moving trains are not entitled to traveling allowance but to running allowance under the rules specially framed by the General Managers. Running allowance as defined in rule 509 ibid is an allowance granted to railway servants of the categories of Drivers, Shunters, Firemen, Guards, Brakesmen and Augwallas who perform duties directly connected with the charge of moving trains. This allowance is calculated at a rate per 100 miles run with a train carrying passenger traffic or on the basis of each trip of eight hours performed on such train and is in lieu of every kind of detention and traveling allowance. According to Advance Chapter No. 3 of Personnel Manual of the Pakistan Railways at page 50, the running staff will get substantive pay, plus average mileage up to 50% of their pay, when posted to waiting duty, including periods they remain booked. Off in connection with stationary duties. This signifies that this running allowance, in fact, constitutes a part of the pay of a railway servant belonging to any of the categories of the railway employees who perform duties directly connected with the charge of moving trains. I am fortified in this view by the definition of `average pay' as given in rule 707 of the Establishment Code and Note below rule 2(11)(c) of Chapter No. 4, Section I, Part A of the Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual, Volume I, at page 533 which envisage that in the case of staff entitled to running allowance, a month's pay shall also include the amount of running allowance drawn during the month limited to 55% of pay for that month. The above Note further provides that in the case of a person who is on leave (other than LWP), however, 55% of pay which he would have drawn, had he not proceeded on leave, shall be taken as pay for the purpose of running allowance. Of course, under rule 221 railway servants drawing running allowance are not entitled to any traveling allowance for performing duties directly connected with the charge of moving trains, but if they move outside their sphere of duties in connection with the performance of duties not directly connected with the charge of moving trains, as for instance for undergoing a course of training, they are entitled to traveling allowance under rule 337.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has cited an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in The Pakistan Railways v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others (Civil Appeal No. 234 of 1988: 1993 SCM R 258=1993 PLC 593 decided on 8th of June, 1991. This judgment, however, is not relevant to the question in controversy in these appeals. It deals with railway servants whose headquarters was temporarily shifted from one place to another on their own request.
8. My learned predecessor had held as far back as on 26th of October, 1985 in Meherban Khan and others v. The Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi (Appeal No. RI-180/85- Punjab), decided on 26th of October, 1985 that railway servants in receipt of running allowance while deputed to get training in diesel at Karachi were entitled to traveling allowance under rule
337. It is pointed out that the Railway Administration did not assail this decision in the High Court.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the grievance petitions bought by the respondents on 5th of October, 1991 were barred by time as their claim related to the years 1984/85.
Mirza Muhammad Hanif, one of the respondents who appeared as P.W.1 on behalf of the respondents stated that the respondents had submitted their respective claims in time to the Head Train Clerk namely, Nazim. Nazim Hussain, Head Clerk while appearing as P.W. 2 fully supported him. He is an employee of the Pakistan Railways and no reason has been given for discarding his testimony. Ghulam Nabi (R.W.1) and Ashfaq Ahmad Mir (R.W. 2) denied that the respondents had submitted any claim but their denial was insufficient to falsify the positive statement of Nazim Hussain (P.W. 2). In view of the statement of Nazim Hussain (P.W. 2) therefore, I maintain the finding of the learned Labour Court that the grievance petitions were within time.
10. The appellants had also raised a legal objection that the grievance petitions were incompetent as the respondents were not workmen. In support of this plea, a copy of notification (Exh. R.2) was brought on record. However,, there is no other evidence to show that any of the respondents is covered by this notification. From a perusal of the impugned decision, it appears that this plea was not pressed before the learned Labour Court. It was not agitated in the grounds of appeal nor raised by learned counsel for the appellants in his arguments: In these circumstances, this plea is overruled.
11. For the foregoing reasons, I find no force in these appeals and accordingly dismiss the same.