Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. RI‑752 of 1984, decided on 10th July, 1985:
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Railway servant claiming fixation of pay accordance with rules as interpreted by High Court‑‑Grievance petition, _held, maintainable.
Ch. Muhammad Yousaf for Appellant.
Ch. Fazal Elahi for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 25th June, 1985.
The decision dated 21‑11‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding officer, Punjab Labour Court No‑6, Rawalpindi has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the respondents was accepted and the appellant was directed to reflex the pay of the respondents w.e.f. 1‑11‑‑1981 after adding one advance increment.
2. The facts of the case are that Station Masters were in scale No.8 whereas the Assistant Station Masters were in scale No.7. The post of Station Masters was placed in scale No.11 and that of Assistant Station Masters in scale No.8. Some of the respondents are Station Masters and the others are Assistant Station Masters. The respondents brought on application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before the Authority under the said Act, claiming one premature increment. The application was allowed and the appeal preferred to the learned lower Appellate Court under section 17 of the Payment of Wages ct was dismissed. Against that decision a writ petition was also filed which was dismissed in limine. The respondent recovered the deducted wages under the order of the authority. Thereafter, respondents brought n application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for re‑fixation of their pay in the light of the orders of the High Court passed in the writ petition referred to above. The said petition has been accepted and hence this appeal. Question of limitation was also raised in written statement on the ground that fixation of pay was made in 1979 whereas grievance petition was brought in 1983.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant at the case was of upgradation of post and not of promotion from were post to higher post, therefore, the respondents are not entitled one premature increment. It has also been argued that petition 0nder section 25‑A is not maintainable as no right guaranteed by any law settlement or award has been violated. It has also been argued mat this Court has already interpreted para. (h) holding that one premature increment could be allowed in cases of promotion from lower lost to higher post and not in cases of switching over to the higher scale. It has been lastly argued that an inter‑Court appeal against the order, passed in writ petition by the High Court in pending before the High Court.
4. No question of limitation arises inasmuch as the same question has already been decided by interpreting para. (H) upto the level of the High Court. No doubt the said para was interpreted in a petition brought under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act whereas the present petition of the respondents was under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 but since the parties are the same who were arranged in the case in which para. (H) was interpreted, no question of limitation arises.
The contention that petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not maintainable has no force. In reality the respondents have not come forward for implementation of the order of the High Court but the prayer is that the appellant should reflex his pay in the light of the instructions contained in clause (H) as interpreted by the High Court in the writ petition of the appellant. Clause (H) is, a kind of rule and thus it could be said that the respondents had come forward on account of the infringement of the right guaranteed to them by law. The objection, therefore, is overruled.
6. This is true that my view is that premature increment can be allowed in the cases where the employees have been promoted to the higher post of greater and different responsibilities and duties but since between the same parties the said para. Has been interpreted differently by the High Court the parties are bound by it and the respondents could not challenge it without getting the order passed in writ petition set aside by any higher forum. Learned counsel for the appellant no doubt said that inter‑court appeal was pending before the High Court but firstly there is no material available on the record in the shape of the order passed by the High Court showing the pendency of such an appeal and secondly for the sake of argument even if any such appeal is pending before the High Court it is not sufficient to help the appellant to wriggle out the observations made by the High Court in the writ petition. I am still firm in my views but so far as the present case is concerned since the parties are bound by the decision of the High Court the appellant could not seek interference from this Tribunal. If the grievance petition had not been between the parties who were arranged in the application brought under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, I may have made different observations.
7. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal having no force is dismissed.
A.E.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer