1990 PLP 292 (PLC)

HA. Jafri for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th March, 1989. This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. IV at Karachi, dated 19‑9‑1988, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed by the respondents as a Boiler Operator in Grade‑IV, vide letter, dated 9‑9‑1986. On 22‑10‑1987, he came, to know that one Shabbir Ahmad; Boiler Operator in Pakistan Steel has been placed in Pay Scale No. VII. He, therefore, made grievance to the respondents claiming Grade VII from the date of appointment. Failing to get his grievance redressed, he filed the grievance petition before the learned Labour Court. The respondents resisted the grievance petition on the ground that the appellant had no right which he would enforce under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, that they were not governed by the Rules and Regulations of Pakistan Steel which was a separate organization and further that according to their rules, the Boiler Operator was initially appointed in Grade‑IV.

3. I have heard the appellant, in person, and Mr. HA. Jafri, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents. I have also perused the written arguments filed by the appellant and the record and proceedings of the case.

4. The preliminary objection of the appellant is that the written reply before the learned Labour Court filed by the respondents is not verified. It is settled law that such an unverified statement cannot be taken into consideration as a piece of evidence. However, this would not debar the respondents from contesting the grievance application before the learned Labour Court or producing their witness to rebut the claim of the appellant. If the evidence of the respondents' witness is altogether discarded, it may also prejudice the appellant as the admissions made by the witness of the respondents which are in favour of the appellant would also not be taken into consideration. In 1984 P L C 610, it has been held by learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, that there was no provision in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, that written statement had to be filed by the respondents. However, the fact remains that initially the burden of proof is still upon the appellant to prove that he has certain rights under law, settlement or award which he could enforce through section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

5. It is not disputed that according to the letter of appointment, the terms of which were accepted by the appellant, he joined the services of the respondents as Boiler Operator in Grade‑IV. However, he claims Grade‑VII on three grounds. Firstly, that the respondent is a subsidiary of Pakistan Steel and is governed by the Rules and Regulations of Pakistan Steel. Secondly, that one Shabbir Ahmed a Boiler Operator of Pakistan Steel is placed in Grade‑VII; and thirdly, that because he has got certificate of the 1st Class Boiler Attendant, therefore, he was entitled to Grade‑VII.

6. The respondent has filed the Articles of Association of respondent which is Exh. R. 4 which shows that the respondent is a separate entity and is not a subsidiary of Pakistan Steel. However, Anwar Rasheed, a witness of the respondents had admitted in the cross‑examination that they have got Trade Grade Structure in their own establishment which is a subsidiary of Pakistan Steel Mills. He also further admitted that since they were subsidiary of Steel Mills, they have taken guidance from the Circular of the Steel Mills with respect to Electricians. One Vishore Kumar, a Superintendent of Pakistan Steel was summoned by the learned Labour Court as a Court witness. He has produced Trade Grade Structure, Promotion and Recruitment Rules of Pakistan Steel, as Exh. C.W./1. It shows that Supervisors are placed in Pay Group VII whereas skilled workers were placed in Pay Group IV to VI. Rule 4 provides that skilled workers will not have Pay Scales less than Pay Group IV. Trade Grade Structure of the respondents have also been placed on record at page 331 of R & P under orders of the learned Labour Court. This Pay Group Structure is also similar to that of Pakistan Steel. Supervisors are placed in Group VII, whereas skilled workers are placed in Group IV to VI. Similarly it is provided in rule 4 that skilled workers will not get pay scale less than of Pay Group IV. Thus, under the Pay Structure Rules of both the establishments viz., Pakistan Steel as well as the respondents, the skilled workers arc placed in Group IV to VI with minimum scale of Group IV whereas the Supervisors are placed in Group VII. Both the rules further provide that after putting in 5 years' satisfactory service in addition to the normal promotions against vacancies, time scale promotions will also be made in unionized categories from Pay Group I to VII. This rule would obviously not be applicable to the appellant as he has not yet completed 5 years' service. There appears to be no violation of Rules by placing the appellant in Group IV on initial appointment as skilled worker.

7. I now proceed to examine the contention of the appellant that because he has first class Boiler Attendant Certificate and because one Shabbir Ahmad of Pakistan Steel was placed in Group VII, therefore, he is also entitled to be placed in Group VII. No rule or law has been produced to show that by virtue of obtaining 1st Class Boiler's Attendance Certificate, the appellant had acquired a right to be placed in Group VII. Mr. Kishore Kumar has stated that since 1983, when the unionized Trade Grade Structure came into force, no boiler attendant of 1st Class or IInd Class has been appointed directly; however, such attendant, if appointed directly, would be allowed Grade IV. This statement has not been challenged in the cross‑examination. He has admitted that one Boiler Attendant out of 50 Boiler Attendants has 1st Class training certificates but no question had been asked as to in what grade the Boiler Attendant is. Even, if he is in Grade VII, he could be by virtue of Rule which provides for promotion after 5 years' satisfactory service. No question had been put to him with regard to Shabbir Ahmad to show that he was initially appointed in Grade VII or whether this Shabbir Ahmad has also been promoted by virtue of putting in 5 years' satisfactory service. No question in cross‑examination has been put to Anwar Rasheed, the respondents' witness to show the reasons or the considerations under which Shabbir Ahmad was given Grade VII. However, a question has been put to him about one Zahid lqbal, who was appointed in Grade V, but, he had explained that Zahid Iqbal was a third class engineer and that he was an engineer whereas the appellant was an Attendant. Under the Rules, the management has got discretion to appoint a skilled worker in Grade IV to VI looking to his qualifications or experience, but, the mandatory provision is that they could not place a skilled worker in pay scale lower than Grade IV. The right under the rules which accrued to the appellant was to be placed in the scale of Grade IV and placement in the higher scale was within the discretion of the management. The mere fact that the appellant has got 1st Class Boiler Attendant Certificate or that Shabbir Ahmad was placed in Grade VII by the Pakistan Steel or even one Zahid Iqbal was placed in Grade V by the respondents, cannot be said to have created a right under any Law, Award or Settlement which could be enforced under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

8. The appellant had raised individual grievance and the powers of the Labour Court to grant relief in the case of individual grievance are limited in terms of section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, which entitles the workman to get his right under any Law, Award or Settlement enforced through the Labour Court. Obviously there is no award or settlement under which the appellant can claim Grade VII only because he holds 1st Class Certificate of Boiler's Attendant or that other person was promoted or appointed in Grade VII. Apparently, there is no law which guarantees such Grade to the appellant. Rules of both the establishments which have been referred to above only guarantee minimum of Group IV for skilled workers. Even, the present appellant could be promoted to Grade VII by virtue of Rules with regard to Time Scale Promotions, quoted above, after he fulfills the terms and conditions of the Rules. Presently even the right under that Rule has not accrued to the appellant as he has not completed 5 years' satisfactory service.

9. The appellant has also raised objection that the learned Labour Court has not complied with the mandatory provisions contained in Order 14 Rule 1(5), C.P.C. by not framing issues. Under section 36(2) of I.R.C. 1969, the Labour Court for the purpose of adjudication and determination any Industrial Dispute would be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have same powers as are vested in such Court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 including the powers of enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; compelling the production of documents and material objects; and issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents. The Labour Court is a Court of limited jurisdiction and though it has got powers of a Civil Court still there is no provision which makes it mandatory for the Labour Court to follow all the provisions of C.P.C. The provisions of C.P.C. in general which may enhance the interest of justice are normally to be followed by the Labour Court, but, the failure to follow any such provision of C.P.C. would not be fatal to the proceedings unless the procedure adopted by the learned Labour Court is against the principle of natural justice or has caused any prejudice to any party. In the instant case the parties knew as to on what points they were at issue and did lead evidence in support of their respective contentions. Non‑framing of issues would not, therefore, vitiate proceedings before the learned Labour Court. The appellant has also made grievance that the documents produced by the respondents were forged and had also moved an application before the learned Labour Court for proceeding against the respondents for perjury but there appears to be no evidence to show that these documents by the respondents were in any way forged for which they could be prosecuted.

10. Considering all the facts discussed above, in my opinion, there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed as such.

11. However, before parting, it may be pointed that it is within the discretion of the management to award any of Grades IV, V or VI to its skilled workers and at least in one case of Zahid Iqbal, they have given him directly Grade V. The management may sympathetically consider the case of the appellant for higher grade keeping in view his qualifications of 1st Class Boiler Attendant Certificate. A.E./1432/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.