' Ahmed was working as gang-man at Gang No.13, against a permanent post, it was so pleaded by him. It was alleged that over a certain length of period he was not allowed to draw the wages. The prayer made was that the Authorities be ordered to allow Ahmed gang-man to continue performing duty at Gang No.13, Tandanianwala, Tehsil Samundri, District Faisalabad. With the revision petition, copy of the grievance petition and copies of the other relevant documents have not been annexed. It appears that Ahmed's services had either been terminated or he had been shifted to another place; and feeling aggrieved he filed a grievance petition in Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore, at Ferozewala. The said Court, however, returned the petition, for its presentation before competent Court, vide order dated 26-6-1996. Soundness of this order was questioned by way of revision petition filed before this forum by Ahmed employee on 16-7-1996.
2. According to the respondents, gang-men used to be employed temporarily for a period of 3/4 months, so that they were only work-charged and could not claim permanence in service.
3. It is also to be noted that although the Head Office of the Railways is located at Lahore, railway employees posted at different places have been filing grievance petitions, as workmen, at the nearest seats of Labour Courts. Head of the Government has his office at Islamabad; but that does not mean that every Government servant will be entitled to have success to the competent forum at that place and not necessarily at other stations. Best way for the aggrieved employee was to approach the learned Labour Court at Faisalabad. The Labour Court at Ferozwala was erroneously approached by him; and the said Court seems to have passed a sound and proper order, in declining to entertain the matter and in returning the petition for its presentation in the Court of competent jurisdiction. I do not think that this Tribunal can find any fault with the propriety or soundness of the impugned order, which is endorsed. The revision petition appears to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed with no order to costs.
4. The learned counsel representing the revision-petitioner is himself not quite serious to pursue the petition and is in a mood to withdraw it. He, however, entreats that against the next available post the petitioner be accommodated. Well, such occasion will arise, when vacancies fall in future; and, again, the Authorities will most probably be advertising the posts and will of course also be following the prescribed procedure and the relevant rules and regulations, on the subject. The request made, by way of mercy, thus, cannot be taken serious notice of although in view of increasing unemployment, the request may will be considered in a magnanimous manner, as and when such occasion arises.
' With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of, with no orders as to costs.