DECISION This is an appeal of a Railway employee, arising from order of the Fifth Sind Labour Court, Karachi, dismissing the claim of the worker for release of his salary and for being placed on active duty.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellant was appointed as A.S.M. (Signaller) in the Railways and sent for training to Walton Training School. After passing the course he was posted at various stations and was being paid salary of Rs.725 per month. By an order dated 19-3-1991 the appellant was relieved of his duties and placed on waiting list although his services were not terminated nor he was dismissed. His wages were not being paid to him from that date. The appellant kept waiting for a posting order but no-orders came. Ultimately he sent his grievance notice on 28-3-1995 and then filed his grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O.
3. The case involves to main issues:
(1) Whether the appellant was a worker or workman and not a civil servant.
(2) Whether the grievance notice sent after a period of four years would be tithe-barred, as being beyond three months allowed under section 25-A?
4. I have heard Ch. Ashraf Khan for the appellant and Ch. M. Latif Saghar for the Pakistan Railways.
They more or less agree as to the legal aspects of the issues (section 3, Chapter 1, Railways Act, 1890). Under clause (4) of this section "Railway means a railway or any portion of a railway, for the public carriage of passengers, animals or goods, and includes all lines of fails siding branches, stations, offices and workshop in connection with the Railway. Under section 3, subsection (7), Railways servant means any person employed by a Railway Administration in connection with the service of a Railway. This definition of a Railway servant is, therefore, very wide and the Railway servants fall under the category of civil servants of the Federation. Section 148 of the Railways Act further enlarges the word Railway. The Railway includes even a Railway under construction or a portion lying unused etc.
5. Question then arises whether Railway servants also fall under the definition of workmen. These exceptions are provided under the definition of civil servant. In the Civil Servants Act any person falling under definition of workman under Workmen's Compensation Act and the Factories Act is a workman. Under Workmen Group Act, section 2(l)(n) the following persons are workmen:
(1) employed on a Railway; and
(2) Under sub-clause (xii) employed upon Railway as defined in clause (4) of section 3, subsection
(1) of section 148 of the Railways Act, 1890.
6. Therefore, the net result is that a person drawing less than Rs.3,000 and working on the Railway as defined under sections 3 and 148 will become workman and will be excepted from the definition of civil servants. Even persons working in connection with operation or maintenance of an engine, Railway Engine propelled by steam or mechanical power or electricity would also fall under definition of workman. Applying this definition to the present case a Signallar drawing Rs.725 per month and working upon a Railway would be a workman.
7. The next question is whether the grievance notice of the appellant was the-barred under section 25-A of the I.R.O. It is an admitted position that services of the appellant were not terminated by any order of termination. He was put on the waiting list for a new posting but the-order did not come through and this waiting took to long. He was not paid wages for this period of waiting. Non- payment of wages would be a continuing cause of action as held in 1991 PLC 853 while the salary for the period beyond three months of the notice would not be the-barred. The action for the rest would be the-barred. So, the workman can claim salary or wages for three months preceding the grievance notice. The question of notice being barred would have arisen after he had been terminated or dismissed but in this case no such order was communicated to him. He was only to wait for an assignment. He, therefore, continues to be in service. All other workers in similar position have succeeded in getting the posting orders but the appellant is the only unlucky one. It is not known why he cannot succeed whereas other colleagues have succeeded in getting the postings.
The appellant is thus entitled to received his wages from 28th December, 1994 and also his posting order which has been delayed for no reasons.
8. The decision of the Labour Court is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed in terms of this order. Orders accordingly.