Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑415 of 1983, decided on 16^th June, 1984.

‑‑S. 25‑A‑Grievance petition ‑Chowkidars made to work as Tube-well Operators‑No written order passed‑No assurance of pay scale of Tube-well Operator given‑Pay of Tube-well Operator, in circumstances, held, could not be claimed as of right though working as Tube-well Operator could be refused.

Mian Mahmood Hussain for Appellants.

Date of hearing:10th June, 1984.

The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 16th July, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1 Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellants for their fixation of pay in the cadre of Tube-well Operators with effect from the date they are working as such, was dismissed.

2. The appellants are Chowkidars but are working as Tube-well Operators since 1978. There is no written order of their appointment as Tube-well Operators. They are getting pay in N.P.S. 1 as Chowkidars. The respondents denied in the written statement the working of the appellants as Tube-well Operators but in the evidence of R. Ws. had to admit this fact. The only point to be seen is if the appellants have any right guaranteed by any law, award or settlement for Labour Courts have jurisdiction to grant relief if any such guaranteed right has been infringed. Since without any written order the appellants were made to work as Tube-well Operators, this is unknown what terms and conditions were verbally settled. Even this is not known under whose verbal orders the appellants started working as such. The real difficulty is not the absence of written order but the point is under what conditions the appellants started working as Tube-well Operators. The Tube-well s were put under the charge of the appellants, the entries made by them in log‑book were accepted and the reports made by them from time to time about the working or defect in the Tube-well s must have been acted upon. It is thus clear that they were allowed to work as such. Since the appellants continued getting pay in their substantive scale] and did not claim the pay of Tube-well Operator for 3/4 years, it showed that the agreement was that they would work as Tube-well Operators without being absorbed in the scale. Since agreement always has a force of law and when any term of the agreement is violated, it can be said that the right guaranteed by law has been infringed. As it has not been proved by the appellants that it was agreed that they would get the pay of Tube-well Operators, no right has been violated by refusing to give them the scale.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that Standing Orders 2‑A and 5 guarantee a right and the same has been infringed. The learned lower Court has rightly rejected this argument. Standing Order 2‑A merely says that at the time of appointment, transfer or promotion, the workman shall be given an order in writing showing the terms and conditions of his service. It does not help the appellants in their cause. This is not their case that the scale of Tube-well Operator was agreed to be given to them. Suppose now an order in writing is given to the appellants that they would work as Tube-well Operators in the existing scale without acquiring any right, it will not be helpful to them. Likewise Standing Order 5 is not helpful. If the respondents happen to comply with Standing Order 5, it may specify that the pay of the appellants will be of their substantive posts i.e. Chowkidars. If the appellants wanted the scale of Tube-well Operators, they should have refused to work as such unless the pay of that category had been agreed to be given to them. Since they started working as such without the condition that they would get pay of Tube-well Operators, they cannot claim the said scale. They can only refuse to work as Tube-well Operator but cannot claim pay of that post in the absence of such an agreement.

4. The grievance notice has rightly be held by the learned lower Court as time‑barred. No question for occurring cause of grievance arises. When in the beginning the pay of the appellants was allowed in their substantive scale of Chowkidar, cause of grievance, if any, accrued to them but they slept over the matter. The period of limitation started running against them in 1973. The grievance notice being time‑barred, the grievance petition was not competent.

5. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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