An application before the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 S25 Labor Court to maintain tain only for the enforcement of guaranteed rules that provide the option for a new or old pay scale once the worker is on the right. If used, the court may not demand that the employee be allowed to exercise again. Has the discretion to grant permission to reuse, but the employee has no guarantee of enforcement through the court
Appeal No. RI-1 of 1983/Pb., decided on 16th.February, 1983.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-
---S 25-A-Petition before Labour Court-Maintainable only for enforcement of guaranteed right-Rules providing provision of option for new or old pay scale-Workman once exercising right of option-Cannot seek remedy from Court for being allowed to re-exercise option-Employers, held, has discretion to allow to re-exercise option but workman had no guaranteed right for enforcement through Court.
Appellant in person.
Date of hearing : 9th February, 1983.
JUDGEMENT This appeal is directed against the decision dated 22-11-1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The appellant was a guard but due to the failure of his vision he was absorbed as ticket collector grade-I in 1964. He made representations that he was to be absorbed as ticket collector grade-II. He, therefore, prayed that the scale of ticket collector grade-11 be given to him wit': effect from 13-9-1964. During the pendency of his representations national pay scales were introduced and option was invited from railway employees either to opt to continue to remain in the consolidated pay scales already existing or to opt to national pay scale. Option was invited from the appellant. He was asked to opt to national pay scale either with effect from 1-3-1972 or 20-6-1972. The appellant gave option in favour of national pay scale with effect from 1-3-1972. Thereafter, he was ordered to be absorbed as ticket collector grade-II with effect from 13-9-1964. He then applied for permission to opt to national pay scale with effect from 2-6-1972 in order to get one increment. He says that if he had been deemed to be absorbed as ticket collector grade-II before option was invited from him, he would have opted with effect from 2-6-1972. He has not shown how he was prevented from opting with effect from 2-6-1972 for being absorbed as ticket collector grade-I. This is not his case that he was a gainer as ticket collector grade-I to opt with effect from 1-3-1972. He knew that his representation was pending, so he could have elected to opt with effect from 2-6-1972. A particular date was fixed upto which option was to be given. Since that date has since long expired and since once he has exer cised the right of option, he cannot seek remedy from law Courts. The employer has discretion to allow to re-exercise the option but he has n guaranteed right for the enforcement of which he could come to the Court Besides his petition being time-barred, even on merits he has no case. His petition was rightly disallowed.
3. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not. find any force in the appeal and dismiss it in limine.
