1. ' The Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi, has filed the present appeal against Ahmad and others against the direction of the learned lower Court, dated 1st March, 1971. The findings of the lower Court have been assailed on the ground of being unlawful against the facts and merits of the case, that the claim of the respondents was not within time, that the respondents had no cause of action and were estopped by their own conduct. The facts of the case are that Ahmad and other respondents filed separate petitions under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, against the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi on 21st July, 1975, which petitions were consolidated.
2. ' In the original petitions the respondents in appeal had alleged that they were employed as Yard Foremen in the Pakistan Railways and were posted at Nowshera. They were not allowed Calendar Day Weekly Rest to which they were entitled under the Industrial Award of Mr. Justice Khutshid Zaman (Industrial Dispute No. 1 of 1963), published in Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, dated February, 1964. Consequently a notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was served on the appellant by the Trade Union of the respondents on 14th October, 1971. As a result of which the respondents in appeal were given calendar day weekly rest with effect from 9th January, 1975.
3. ' The case of the respondents is that under Wages Act, 1936 and the rules framed thereunder and the award referred to above the Pakistan Railways was under the legal obligation to give calendar day weekly rest to the respondents in appeal, but this was not allowed to them and therefore, they preferred their petition under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
4. ' The appellants contested this petition in the lower Court on the grounds that a joint petition was misconceived, that the petition was time-barred, that the petitioner had no locus stand!, that the Court had no jurisdiction. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. ' It is admittedly clear from the record and the Award referred to that the respondents were entitled to calendar day weekly rest which has admittedly not been allowed to the respondents for the period referred to in their respective petitions and on the basis of the Award they are entitled to the compensation claimed by them respectively in their petitions.
6. ' As regard the limitation the respondents have prayed for the compensa tion for 36 months period only which claim comes within the period of limitation. In the circumstances I find no force in appeal and maintain the findings of the lower Court and dismiss the appeal of the Divisional Superintendent of Pakistan Ralways, Rawalpindi.