DECISION This appeal by Pakistan Railways arises from the order of the Sixth Sind Labour Court, Hyderabad allowing the grievance petition of the respondent for encashment of six months wages on retirement as un-availed L.P.R.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent retired as Yard Master, Kotri Railway Station on 2-12-1991 after service of about 30 years. He applied for encashment of six months L.P.R. On 6-6-1991 and issued reminder on 8-8-1991 but his claim was rejected. He served the Railway with a grievance notice and then filed his grievance application.
3. It is the case of the Railways that the claim of the respondent for encashment of L.P.R. Was rejected because the length of service qualifying for encashment was subsequently extended to 31 years and the respondent was not entitled to this benefit.
4. The main question in this case is whether the respondent as Yard Master drawing more than Rs.3,000 per month was a Railway servant coming within the definition of service of the Federation or was a worker under the Railways Act. The contention of the appellant Railway is that the respondent was a civil servant and if he was aggrieved he should have moved the Federal Services Tribunal for redress. The petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Was not maintainable.
5. The relevant law on this point is to be found under the Railways Act. Civil Servant Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act. Under section 3(7) of the Railways Act, 1890 any person employed by Railway Administration in connection with the service of a Railway is a Railway servant. Under section 148 of the Railways Act clause (2) any person working on a Railway is a Railway servant.
Under section 2(n) subsection (ii) Workmen's Compensation Act a Railway servant employed on monthly wages not exceeding Rs.1,500 is a worker but if he gets salary above Rs.1,500 he is a Railway servant. Under the Schedule of Workmen's Compensation Act section 2(n)(1) clauses (e)
(xii) and (xiii) a person serving in the Railway ' administration' is a civil servant but if he was employed on the Railway track and not at the station he would be a worker as defined in the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Yard Master working in the office at the Railway Station Kotri was, therefore, a Railway servant and since he was drawing more than Rs.1,500 per month he came within the definition of civil servant and he could therefore seek redress of his grievance in respect of his A terms and conditions of service by filing his appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. His grievance petition before the Labour Court is not maintainable and the order of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside and the appeal of the Railway is allowed.