Find a Lawyer

Application No.17 of 1985, decided on 7th January, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Petitioner record keeper placed in pay group IV while respondent record keeper placed in pay group V on initial appointment‑‑Category of record keepers in administration and in technical department, held, would not be sustainable where persons serving in the department could be transferred to other department‑ There would be only one category of record keepers in establishment in circumstances.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Plea of different pay group and wage rate of category of workmen serving as record keepers‑‑Effect Where applications were made by candidates, interviews were held and selection was made on terms and conditions which were accepted by successful candidates‑‑Such appointees thereafter, held, could not object to terms and conditions of appointment‑‑Acceptance of terms and conditions of employment would create estoppel against such appointees who would be deemed to be fully aware of grade they were placed in, making no representation to selection committee at time of such appointment.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑No agreement between establishment and Union that post of record keeper would be created in pay group V‑ Presumption, held, would be that selection of such record keepers would be within terms and conditions of employment and rights could be enforced within four corners of such terms of agreement.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Pay group of employees, creation of‑ Every organization, held, would have financial implications to meet with requirement of strength of employees and output return in interest of organizational working.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Requirement‑‑Serving of notice of grievance, held, is mandatory requirement to give jurisdiction to Court.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Person appointed in specified pay group‑‑Such appointee having been interviewed, selected and accepting term, and conditions of service, held, could not be deprived of such status or salary nor could his appointment be used as precedent by other workmen who had accepted their appointment according to terms and conditions of service enumerated in letter of appointment.

‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Limitation for‑‑Limitation for filing of grievance petition, held, would be three months from date when cause of action arose to seek Courts intervention for vindication of right‑‑ Petition filed after such statutory period, would be barred by limitation

Muhammad Ahmad for Applicant.

Kamal Mansur Alam for Respondent.

This is an application under section 25‑A Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, filed by Mr. Tameezuddin Ahmed Khan Record Keeper of the Pay Roll Section of Pakistan Steel Mills, against Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation for seeking directions that the respondent be given the direction to provide Mr. Tameezuddin Ahmed Khan the same pay group V of the wage rate of Rs.375‑25‑700 which were the terms of employment of the workmen issued by the respondent on 30‑11‑1981 and also compensation be provided as it was provided to one Mr. Haleem of the same category who was appointed in 1976.

2. Applicant was appointed by the respondent as the. Record Keeper on 4th of June, 1981.

3. Respondent had created a post of Record Keeper in the year 1976 in its establishment, in pay Group, V, in the rate of wages 310‑25‑560,

4. Respondent had also appointed one Mr. Haleem on 'the same vacant post on 7‑12‑1976 in she pay Group in the same rate, which pay Group was increased and modified to the scale of 375‑25‑700 due to settlement arrived at between management and the C.B.A. union.

5. This publication of wage rate was also displayed on the Notice Board. 6. Respondent also employed the applicant on 4‑6‑1981 in the same category of workmen of Record Keeper in the pay Group IV of wage rate of Rs.250‑15‑490 instead of his appointment in pay Group V of wages rates of Rs.375‑25‑700.

7. Applicant has the grievance that there was no different pay Group and wage rate of the category of the workmen Record Keeper since 1976 and in the year 1981 except there was a pay Group V of the wage rate of Rs.375‑25‑700 which also had the similar nature of work.

8. Applicant made applications to the respondent to remove those irregularities and bring it at par to the applicant with compensation in the pay group V as it was provided to the workers, holding the same category.

9. Respondent arrived at settlement with C. B. A. union on 23‑4‑1984 and it was agreed that the management will remove the irregularities or any injustice' done in grade to be regularised with compensation under the Demand No.17‑A which was the demand of the union.

10. It was agreed that the individual case shall be dealt with on merits, on case to case basis.

11. Respondent in pursuance of the terms of settlement appointed a anamoly committee to deal with the individual cases.

12. The committee came to the decision in this manner:

"Record Keepers whose names are given in the list Annexure‑I1 were appointed as Record Keepers on 4‑6‑1981 in pay Group IV. One Mr. A. Haleem was also appointed as Record Keeper but he was given Pay Group V at the time of his appointment viz. in November, 1976. They desire that they may also be allowed Pay Group V.

13. This was the terms of reference on the basis of which the Committee passed this order:

"The Committee decided that since they are Pay Group as prescribed for Record Keepers in the Revised Recruitment Rules, there is no anamoly in their scale of pay.

14. This decision has been challenged by Mr. Tameezuddin Ahmed Khan in this petition that the respondents be directed to provide the same pay group V of wage rate 375‑25‑700 also to the applicant Tameezuddin Ahmed Khan.

15. Respondent has contended that:

(1) The application is not maintainable under section 25‑A, I.R.O.

(2) Application is time‑barred.

(3) Applicant has not complied with the provisions of section 25, I.R.O.

(4) The appointment of Mr. Haleem and the revision of pay scale is admitted position but contended that grades and pay scale are modified from time to time and he supports the decision of the committee that it was passed, as proper.

1. Mr. Tameezuddin Ahmed Khan who was appointed on 4‑8‑1981 in the category of workman, as record keeper, in pay group IV, of the wage rate of Rs.250‑15‑490 has challenged the case of Mr. Haleem record‑keeper, that if he is the record‑keeper of similar category or same class, cannot be given pay group V in the scale of Ra.375‑25‑700 when Mr. Haleem who has been employed in the pay group V on 7‑12‑1976 at the better scale, Mr. Tameezuddin has also prayed for the same group and challenged the decision of the anamoly committee of the respondent Steel Mill, that the decision of the committee has not removed the anamoly, and the labour Court, should consider whether the decision given by the committee was right decision and the applicant be given pay group, and also compensation, as consequence, of that upper scale.

2. Mr. Tameezuddin has also emphasized this aspect, that when respondent had appointed Mr. Haleem on 7‑12‑1976 in pay group V, in the rate of wages 310‑25‑560 the said group and the wage rate also increased and modified to Rs.375‑25‑700 as a result of the settlement arrived at between the respondent and C.B.A. union in the year 1979‑80. He also further points out to the Court, that this wage rate modified by the respondent Annexure‑4 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance was also displayed by the respondent in its Notice Board, as one of the terms of employment and the same position has also stood at the time of appointment of applicant Tameezuddin and also others.

3. This is an admitted position, that representation was made anamoly committee was constituted, to deal and decide the individual case of anamoly on merit, on case to case basis. The point of reference was, that the record‑keepers whose names are given in the list annexures 2 were appointed as record‑keeper on 4‑6‑1981 in pay group IV one Mr. M.A. Haleem was appointed as a record‑keeper but also given group V at the time of his appointment in November, 1976. They also desired that they may also be allowed pay group V.

4. The anamoly committee gave this decision. It reads as follows:‑

"The committee decided that they are pay group as prescribed for record‑keeper in the revised recruitment rules, there is no anamoly in their scales of pay."

5. How Mr. Haleem was appointed as record‑keeper on 26‑11‑1976. There was no pay group, or the class or category. The noting which was submitted before the authority, it read, that D.O. letter has been received from Muhammad Ali Chairman National Council of Social Welfare Government of Pakistan addressed to the Chairman (P A S M I C) that application of Mr. Haleem for the appointment in the corporation be considered as the deserving case.

6. The Director A and P passed this order:

He may be appointed as a record‑keeper."

7. There in the submission note, it was further pointed to the administration that as the scale of record‑keeper has not been mentioned in the agreement, reached between the management, and the union, and there was no scale prescribed to be given, to this category, it was recommended that the position of the record‑keeper be given the scale of senior clerk 310‑25‑560 if it receives approval of the Director A and P.

8. The Director A & P passed the following order:

"The pay scale proposed upon for the post of record‑keeper seems to be an appropriate and may be approved."

9. From the context of this order, it has become clear that no scale was prescribed, for record‑keeper. There was no agreement between union and the management what scale be given to the record‑keeper. The Manager Administration gave the scale apparently, the scale of pay group V, in the year 1976. When on 4‑6‑1981 there was a recruitment of the record‑keepers, the scale was of pay group IV, in the scale of Rs.250‑15‑490 which have been increased from time of time.

10. It is, therefore, this grievance has been entertained by the applicant Mr. Tameezuddin Khan that they are in no way inferior, to the nature of duties, they perform, which are similar to that of Mr. Haleem and this pay scale in which they are placed they would have been given pay group V at par with the record keeper Mr. Haleem.

11. The decision, which anamoly committee wanted to bring before the committee for deliberation, was also, in the nature of this reference, that every individual case will be decided on merit.

12. The Court, therefore, has to refer the settlement made time to time, the revised rules, by which there was recruitment and the appointment of Mr. Tameezuddin Ahmed Khan and the persons concerned who have not filed application in this Court.

13. The appointment order Exh.A/6 is very clear that on the interview, and test made Mr. Tameezuddin accepted the appointment order with all the terms and conditions to be binding on him and obviously he was a signatory to that acceptance of the term which gave him group IV in the salary of Rs.310 as starting in basic salary with 25% increment annually reaching the scale of 560. The agreement with C.B.A. produced as Annexure‑A and the only annexure produced has referred to the pay scale with pay group IV will be scale 250‑15‑490 and the new scale will be 310‑25‑560. There is no more written that any of the record‑keepers will be entitled to group V, obviously the settlement has been made on January, 1980 long before the revision of scale, and the recruitment.

14. There is another settlement Annexure‑F which is also agreement with C.B.A. Group IV or the Court should, call it, "as grade", as specified in the agreement, the scale has been shown 310‑25‑560 anti the new pay scale in Group IV 375‑30‑735 and in pay group V the scale is 375‑25‑700 and new pay scale 480‑35‑970. This existing pay scale was replaced by the revised pay scale and the agreement concluded that existing pay group shall be revised as follows:

15. Grade IV in the existing pay scale was 375‑30‑735 was revised to 570‑35‑920 and pay group V was revised from 480‑35‑940 to 645‑40‑1045.

16. This was the agreement of 1982 with the following noting that the revised pay scale is worked out by merging Rs.140 to the existing, pay scales and adding 10% of the amount so arrived at.

17. The photocopy of this agreement has been produced. It is not clear whether it was signed. But was admitted position by the respondent who has not challenged the settlement.

18. There are 3 other annexures which are also worth mentioning, first reference has been made to the Annexure A/1 which has come in the evidence. This Annexure A/1 shows the departmental list of the staff which was sanctioned on 30‑11‑1981. The scale is shown of record- keeper 375‑25‑700. This annexure which is said to have been issued by the administration officials does not show the actual grade in which the staff is placed. The second Annexure is R.W/1 which also shows the salary of pay group IV Rs.375‑25‑735.

19. It is explained that all pay scale was 310‑25‑560 in pay group IV and was given the new pay scale 375‑30‑735. But as regards Annexure A/1 this has been objected to that it is not issued by the Steel Mills. This clarification has come in the evidence when the representative of the Steel Mills has cross‑examined the applicant Mr. Tameezuddin Ahmed Khan and Mr. Tameezuddin Ahmed Khan has replied in this manner:

"It is fact that this Exh. was not fixed on the Notice Board of the office. This document only shows that scale from where I can see that the record‑keeper is in grade V. It is fact that there is no mention of grade‑V Expressly. This Exh. is issued by Steel Mills but not circulated by them. It is not a fact that it was not issued by the Steel Mill. It is fact that this document was issued to show the strength of the or Director Finance. I have described, of Grades IV, V in my affidavit."

This Annexure A/1 has not been accepted by the Steel Mill as a authentic document of the scale of pay but the Steel Mill has relied on the scale of pay, showing the appointment orders and subsequent increase, due to such amends and then accepted the stand what is taken in the affidavit explaining the scale of pay as classified in details, viz. A, B, C, D and E.

20. With this background of the case of Mr. Tameezuddin Ahmed Khan, with Steel Mills, this position be cleared that Mr. Tameezuddin Ahmed Khan has not disclosed the source of information from where this document Annexure A/1 came. There is no grade's mention except casual scale but that is also, the Court has referred the correct position from the affidavit of Mr. Tameezuddin Ahmed Khan itself, regarding scale and increase which also the Steel Mills has accepted th4t position.

21. The second question is whether Mr. Haleem was doing different type of work from Tameezuddin Ahmed Khan. This position has also been explained in the evidence when the Assistant Manager was cross‑examined by the applicant's representative. The witness has given out this clear statement that Mr. Tameezuddin Ahmed Khan is not a technical man. Mr. Haleem is a technical person and deals with the technical drawings. This distinction has been placed with these employees. But at the same time when the searching question was put to the Assistant Manager, he has disclosed that every person can be transferred to the account department and there are officers of the administration working in the technical department. In short, the witness has not given the clear, lucid picture of the type of work, done by the officers of the administration and in technical department, as to distinguish the nature of duties performed, by the record keeper of account and other sections.

This position cannot be over looked that record keeper is a record keeper. There is no technical record keeper. Therefore, the Court is of this view, that there was post of record keeper, what is shown in the scale of pay and accepted by both the sides:

22 Third question which is very important in this case is, should Mr. Tameezuddin Ahmed Khan and others who have not filed applications, be placed, in category V pay group because Mr. Haleem enjoyed an exceptional position

23. The Court has examined the position by referring to the documents, settlements and other correspondence and also seen the nothing of the administration officials when Mr. Haleem was appointed in 1976, when there was no grade, no scale of pay and the scale was given by the Director or the Manager Administration, basing, on his discretion that this cale may be an appropriate because it is the function of the senior clerk. There was no rule existing as appearing from the submission note. This post was created obviously as indicated from the nothing and the application was forwarded to absorb this person, as an unemployed in the Steel Mill. But the record subsequently has shown that ‑ first time rules were framed or revised When the word revised comes, it appears that the rules were existing which were revised. Those rules have not been placed on record, to know what were rules existing at that time. However, the position has been clearly spelt out that at the time when the applications were made by the candidates, there was interview, end the selection was made and the terms and conditions to which the applicant who was successful in the interview, accepted the scale of pay which was approved for. Last line of the appointment order is very clear where the signatory has confirmed B that he accepted the terms and conditions of appointment mentioned above. In other words, it created an estoppel against the applicant that he was fully aware of the grade he was placed and he made no representation to the selection committee but first time in 1984 he made the protest taking of the case of Mr. Haleem as an exceptional case to remove the anamoly. Cross‑examination by the representative of the applicant 1,as also been made on these lines that there was no specific mention of the selection committee in the appointment order and then the reference has been made to the word "management". The Assistant Manager has given the meaning of the context in the word, it is used, as selection committee and also at the same time he has explained that management does not mean selection committee. Unfortunately the administration official before coming in the Court had not;, referred the appointment letter to brief himself to give the correct position. There is no word, management used in the opening of the para. of the appointment letter. If the word management is used, it is only mentioned in the condition of the termination of appointment. Therefore, to say that there was no selection committee to select the candidates has not been justified from the assertion of the applicant. If the interview was made before selection committee, the conduct should have been to have made the representation in clear, and unqualified letter in the form of protest, that this appointment was not based on selection committee, interview but as a one man show contrary to the rules but that rules have not been placed when the selection committees are to sit but it is understood that in the respondent organisation the selection committee must be the primary requirement for the selection of the candidate.

24. There is also another important aspect to be looked into that there is no settlement shown to the Court that there was agreement between union and the C. B. A. that post of record keeper will be created in pay group V. This aspect is also silent. Obviously the candidates were selected under the rules, which came to have the affect of that selection of the new candidature for enforcing their rights, guaranteed, as required by law.

25. The final question is how far Mr. Tameezuddin Khan and others be given the pay Group V. Whether pay Group V is justifiable issue because Mr. Haleem was posted in pay Group V in the year 1976. The Court has examined this aspect very minutely and referred to the evidence and also the appointment order and other legal aspect. This is admitted position that Mr. Haleem was the only man in pay Group V. It is not the case that number of persons were in pay Group V in the similar category of record‑keeper and they were appointed under the previous rules and those rules were violated to give the cause of action. This was the first appointment in 1981 on the basis of interview on the Steel Mills policy, which is heavy organisation of heavy complex. Every organisation has also the financial implication to meet with the requirement of the strength of the employees and the out put return in the interest of organisational working.

26. At this stage the Court makes also further discussions to this aspect whether the representation, made in the first place, was made in time, after 13th May, 1981 challenging the appointment of Mr. Haleem as a record‑keeper in pay Group V. What is the effect of the non- representation in application of the nature for the enforcement of the right under section 25‑A. It has expressly provided that application has to be filed within three months from the date when the cause of action arose or the grievance arose to seek the Court's intervention for the vindication of right. The representative of the applicant, will agree to this position that by now the labour law has received number of judicial decisions that the serving of the notice of grievance is the mandatory requirement to give jurisdiction to the Court, which is not given in this. It is the first time the applicant has become conscious of his right when he was within the consciousness of the right after 13th May, 1981 he was accepting the terms and conditions that Mr. Haleem was placed in pay Group V which scale was not acceptable to them.

27. With this background, the Court now comes to this question that should the post of Mr. Haleem be treated as an exceptional when there was no category, there was no group but the simply, application made for the job and the scale of senior clerk was given to him by the Director's approval. By this it does not show that one man was competent to create category or pay group by making as a grade to bind all the employees if specifically selected by the organisation under the rules framed, as a matter of organisational policy, from the point of view of financial implication. The position would have been otherwise if number of record‑keepers were working in pay Group V and the scale of senior, clerk was given under the rule after particular prescribed rule, complexion of the matter would have been changed. So, the anamoly committee if it was sitting to consider case on case to case basis. The Court is of the view that the subsequent rules giving a particular scale to the employees as a record‑keeper cannot be up set in the organisation because of one remote case of Mr. Haleem. Besides his length of service can not now alter or change his status in the nature F of salary or to deprive him of the salary from 1976 to 1981 he has worked in the organisation, in the capacity of the senior clerk giving the more out put of his work, expected from him. Therefore, this cannot be used as a precedent for other record‑keepers whose grade has specified sanction under the strength, with the concurrence, of the selection committee.

28. Despite the view this Court has taken, the applicant has also no case on the point of limitation which is valuable right. Applications is accordingly dismissed.

A. A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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