1995 PLP 87 (PLC)

The appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court where the petition under section 25‑A of the IRO was dismissed. It arose in the following circumstances: The petitioner was employed by the respondent on 22‑5‑1976 in Pa Group IV. On 21‑3‑1973 he was re-designated as Shear Machine Operator i: the same Pay Group with one special increment. Later on he was transferred to the Water Supply and S.S. Department as Pump Operator where according to the petitioner he has been working ever since. His contention was that h~ should have been appointed initially in Pay Group‑VI as all other skilled workers had been appointed in Pay Group‑VI. Even those who were left were assimilated in Pay Group‑VI with full back benefits alongwith time scale promotion. He had made applications but as the same remained unheeded he had sent the grievance notice and thereafter filed the petition.

2. The case as set forth by the respondent was that the petitioner was appointed as Rigger and thereafter re-designated as guilletine Shear Operator on 21‑3‑1978 on the same Pay Scale and not as Shear Machine Operator a; alleged by the petitioner. It was further alleged that he was absorbed therein on permanent basis in the light of the settlement with the CBA and he was working as Vacuum Operator since 1983 in Pay Group VI. According to them the job of the Vaccum Operator and the Shear Machine Operators are altogether different in nature and the pay of the workers in this category depends upon their qualification and experience. The Anomaly Committee had looked into the case of the petitioner in 1988 and he was informed that there existed no Anomaly in his Pay Scale. The changes in the Pay Scale of few persons were on the basis of their qualifications and past experience. Further there being no right guaranteed under law, settlement or award in his favour, the petition was liable to be dismissed.

3. The petitioner was his own witness and the respondent examined Muhammad Sadiq, Manager Administration.

4. The Labour Court found all the material issues against the petitioner and dismissed the petition culminating in this appeal.

5. It is not denied that the decision of the Anomaly Committee was communicated to the appellant on 15‑11‑1988. The grievance notice was sent as late as 3‑2‑1991. The fact that the case of some other workers were decided in their favour in between, would not give a fresh cause of action. Patently the grievance notice was belated and the petition was barred by time.

6. As for his claim in regard to the higher scale of pay he admitted in cross‑examination that he could not produce any memorandum of settlement in support of his claim. He also admitted that no settlement mentioned that the benefit granted to one worker should also be extended to the other workers of his category. He also admitted in his cross‑examination that he did not have even a nodding acquaintance with English language. Denying that he was not appointed as Shear Machine Operator in 1978, in his cross‑examination he admitted that he had no proof for the same. He was confronted with a number of documents whose authenticity he admitted, mentioning him as Vacuum Operator and Pump Operator. He also had to admit that he had presented application before the respondent in which he mentioned his designation either as Pump Operator or Vacuum Operator.

7. Even the pay of Group‑VI was not on the basis of the report of the Anomaly Committee, but came as a time scale promotion.

8. In the light of these facts there is no merit in the appeal. I will therefore affirm the order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2367/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.