Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 421 of 1974, decided on 14th January 1975.

-- S. 25-A-Road Transport Workers (Foremen) case-Board's order indicating that all Foremen recruited directly will also be given Grade II after completion of three years service - Petitioner Foreman, in circumstances, held, entitled to Grade II after having completed 3 years service even though such order could not be termed as a settlement.

--S. 25-A-Delay-Petitioner throughout making representations ---No decision taken by Management on such representations till date of filing petition-Objection that petition was time-barred, in circumstances, rejected.

Zia Mahmood for Appellant.

Sadullah Mumtaz for Respondent.

This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 6-8-74 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi on a petition of the respondent by which order petition was accepted, hence this appeal by the Management.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record of the Junior Labour Court as well as the impugned order.

3. Facts leading to this appeal are that the respondent is a Foreman. His grievance was that through an agreement dated 15-4-71 between the Management and the union, he had been granted grade II for which he had been qualified after completion of his three years service. An extract of that settlement is Exh. PA.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has attacked the order of the Junior Labour Court on the ground that Exh. P A cannot be termed as a settlement. At the most it is an agreement and an agreement cannot be enforced, as it is any right guaranteed by law, award or settlement. Exh. P B is a photostat copy of an order by the Secretary P.R.T.B and its relevant para is that all those Foremen who were directly recruited will also be given grade II after completion of three years service. If this agreement be not taken into consideration, even then appellant was entitled to Grade II by distinction of this order.

5. In the second place learned counsel for the appellant has urged that petition under section 25-A of the respondent was time-barred. In this respect contention of the respondent is that he had been making representations to the department but P.R.T.B never took any decision. In this respect he has referred me to Exh. PC dated 12-12-74. This letter is by the Senior Technical Officer, P.R.T.B and it is addressed to the District Manager for getting some information in order to finalise the case of the respondent, regarding his fixation of pay. So it is clear that respondent had been making representa tions and no decision was taken by the P.R.T.B, hence no laches are involved.

6. For the foregoing discussion, I see no reason to interfere into the order of the Junior Labour Court. It is therefore, upheld and appeal is rejected.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.