The 70-applicants have filed this application on 9-2-1978 claiming recre--ation allowance of one month's salary each for the cycle ending 31-12-1976 which was not allowed by the respondent in spite of the guaranteed right as per recreation allowance rules enforced by the respondent as per office order dated 22-4-1969. This application was filed after grievance notice. The contention of the respondent is that the applicants were entitled to recreation allowance for one cycle only which was allowed and they were not allowed recreation allowance for second cycle and as such they are not entitled to any claim.
2. The applicants have claimed one month's salary as recreation al--lowance for the second cycle for the period from 1-1-1974 to 31-12-1976 which was not paid asserting further that they became regular employees on 1-10-1970 and were paid recreation allowance for first cycle for the period from 1-1-1971 to 31-12-1973. The respondent had substituted another recreation allowance rules vide their letter dated 7-5-1977 according to which half month's salary was payable every year from 1- 5-1977 as recreation allowance. Applicant has produced documents Exh. A-1 to A-11. Applicant No. 1 has given affidavit in support of the contention of the applicants. This joint application is made under section 25.A(10), I. R. O., 1969.
3. The contention of the respondent is that the applicants were made regular in service from 1-10- 1970 and as such after service of 3 years they were entitled to recreation allowance and thus they were entitled to recreation allowance for one cycle only upto 31-12-1976 which was paid to them and hence they were not entitled to the claim. It is further asserted that this application is time barred as the claim for cycle ending 31-12-1976 was filed on 9-2-1978 after grievance notice dated 24-12-1977. One Gul Muhammad Qureshi, Personnel Officer filed affidavit on behalf of the respondent and also the documents as Exh. R-1 to R-9.
4. Admitted position is that the applicants became regular employees with effect from 1-10-1970 and they were entitled to recreation allowance for every 3-years up to one month's salary as per office order dated 22-4- 1969 Exh. A-3 and were later allowed half month's salary as recreation allowance every year with effect from 1-5-1977 as per office memorandum dated 7-5-1977 produced as Exh. A-6. Grievance notice dated 14-12-1977 Exh. A-8 is produced which was replied as per letter dated 26-1-1978 Exh. A-9. The office order Exh. A-3 clearly mentions that recreation allowance for every 3 years' service with effect from 1-7-1969 was payable at the rate of one month's salary. There is nothing in this order that the cycle was to start after 3-years of regular service. Admittedly applicants had rendered regular service from 1-10-1970 to 30-6-1976. As per statement Exh. R-1 the applicants were paid only one recreation allowance which must be for the first cycle ending 31-12-1973. The respondent has failed to establish that as per order Exh. A-3 or the documents produced as Exhs. R-1 to R-9 the applicants were not entitled to the recreation allowance for the cycle for the period from 1-1-1973 to 30-6-1976. The salary of each applicant are mentioned in the statement Exh. A-1 filed with the application which is not denied. Admittedly the recreation allowance for the second cycle was not paid to the applicants to which they were entitled as per their guaranteed and secured rights as per order Exh. A-3. It may be mentioned here that the second recreation allowance for second cycle were already paid to 31 workers whose services were also regularized on 1-10-1970 as is admitted in application No. 32-78 which is also decided today separately. Thus there was no reason to refuse the claim of the applicants in this case.
5. The legal point of limitation is raised by the respondent asserting that the claim was for cycle ending 31-2-1976 but the grievance notice Exh. A-8 was given on 24-12-1977 and the same was beyond the period of 3 months of the date of cause of action and as such this application was time barred. No doubt the claim of the applicants is for the cycle ending 31-12-1976 but the respondent vide their letter dated 9-8-1977 Exh. A-7 has directed that the rest and recreation allowance to the officials whose allow--ance under the old scheme is due can be paid during the current financial year. Thus according to this letter of respondent No. 1 respondents were liable to pay the said claim up to 30-6-1978. During the said period the appli--cants gave grievance notice Exh. A-8 dated 24- 12-1977 and then filed this appli--cation on 9-2-1978 and hence the application under section 25- A(10), Industrial 't Relations Ordinance, 1969 cannot be treated as time barred as the sum was filed within the period of the liability admitted by the respondent themselves.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion of the evidence I come to the conclusion that the applicants are entitled to the recreation allowance upto one month's salary for the second cycle ending 31-12- 1976 which should be paid -to them within a period of one month. Application is thus allowed.