1992 PLP 602 (PLC)

2. I have heard Mr. Shamsuddin Khalid, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, learned Representative for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was admittedly appointed as `Greaser' by the respondents on 12-2-1977 in group II which was in pay scale 180-8-300. Subsequently one Waqar Hussain Memon was appointed as a Greaser on 5-2-1981 in Group III i.e. in pay scale 250-15-490. The appellant was given time scale promotion on 1-8-1983 and was given the designation of `Fitter' in the pay scale 310-25-610. He was given group IV from 10-7-1988. One Abdur Rasheed Tariq, who was appointed as `Greaser' on 1-7-1978 and was given pay scale 180-8-300 (group II) was granted group III 250-15-490 from the date of appointment alongwith the back benefits under orders of Labour Court against which no appeal was filed.

4. The appellant, Azizur Rehman, when he came to know about these anomalies made `representation' to the respondents for removal of anomaly but his representation was rejected on 8-11-1989, where after he gave grievance notice on 14-12-1988 and filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court. The respondents resisted the grievance petition on the ground that it was time-barred and further that the claim of the appellant was not based on any agreement, award or law so as to be enforced by the Labour Court under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969.

5. The learned Labour Court held the petition to be within time which decision has attained finality as no appeal or cross-objections were filed against the said decision of the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court, however, dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that it was not based on any agreement, award or the law.

6. The facts of the case are not disputed. The only question is whether under any settlement, award or law the appellant is entitled to get the relief. Admittedly under clause 54 of the CBA Agreement, dated 31-1-1987, a `Committee' was formed to remove anomalies existing between the co- workers. The Agreement itself was not produced but Annexure AA-2 has been produced which is `Report of the Committee regarding Trade/Grade Structure Promotion/Recruitment Rules and anomalies' which Committee is shown to be formed under clause 54 of the CBA Agreement. Thus the settlement between the CBA and the Management provided for removal of anomalies. If any anomalies existed between the pay and grade of the appellant and other co-workers its removal would be in terms of the settlement. As such the appellant could enforce his right to get anomalies removed through the Labour Court if the Committee framed under the Agreement did not remove such anomaly.

7. In cross-examination Mr. Ghulam Rabbani, a Junior Officer of the respondents, who was examined as respondents' witness, has admitted that the `Anomaly Committee' had decided the application of some of the greasers in A October, 1985 that they should be placed in grade III instead of grade II with effect from the date of their appointment. He also admitted that the respondents did not file any appeal against the decision of the learned Labour Court in the case of co-worker Abdur Rasheed Tariq, who was given grade III retrospectively. He also admitted that Abdur Rasheed Tariq was presently in grade V though appellant was in grade IV and was doing the same job. In Annexure AA-2, referred to above, the case of Abdur Rasheed Tariq was considered with regard to grant of proper pay scale to greasers and it was held that the pay scale to greasers had been decided in terms of clause 106 of CBA Agreement, dated 31-1-1987. With regard to grant of proper scale of Fitters from the date of promotion re-designation as fitter it was decided that on account of CBA Agreement of 1976 the trade/grade structure the minimum pay group for Fitter/Skilled Workers was. Pay Group IV (then 375-30-735). The Committee decided that Mr. Rasheed Tariq should be given Pay group IV, which is relevant for Fitter with effect from the date of promotion/re -designation as fitter. This `Report' is also signed by the representatives of A Management as well as CBA and, therefore, formed part of Settlement. As pointed out apart from passing specific order in respect of Abdur Rasheed Tariq, `Anomaly Committee' had also made certain decisions/observations with regard to `greasers' as well as `fitters' which would be applicable in the cases of all the greasers and fitters.

7. At least two cases of anomalies have been proved by the appellant. His appointment was in group 11 in the scale of Rs.180-8-300 and his date of appointment is 12-2-1977 as per Annexure A-1. According to Annexure A-2 Waqar Hussain Memon was appointed as `greaser' nearly four years later viz. on 5-2-1981 in Grade III in Pay Scale 250-15-491). Even on admission of Mr. Rabbani the same grade has been allowed by Anomaly Committee i.e. grade 8 III to some other greasers from the date of their appointment. I see no reason as to why this discrimination should be made in the case of the appellant and why he should not be allowed group III from the date of his appointment.

8. It also appears that at some stage the appellant was promoted or re-designated as `fitter'. Annexure A-3 is dated 4-8-1983 in which Azizur Rehman is shown to have been promoted/designated as Fitter from 1-1-1983 and given as group III and put in scale 310-25-618. In the memo A-4 which is dated 17-10-1988 the fitters are shown to be `skilled workers'. As such on promotion as fitter the appellant was to be treated as `skilled worker' and in accordance with the decision of `Anomaly committee' as pointed out above in AA-2 the minimum scale for fitters/skilled workers was Pay Group IV which had to be given to the fitters from the date of promotion/re-designation. Mr. Rabbani has admitted that Abdur Rasheed Tariq, who was junior to the appellant, having been appointed in 1978 has been placed in group V whereas appellant, who was appointed in 1977, was in group IV in spite of the fact that they were doing same work. This is glaring anomaly that requires to be removed even under the terms of Settlement of 1987.

9. In view of the above facts and discussions I allow the appeal and direct that the appellant be given Grade-III from the date of appointment and also be given time-scale promotion as provided under the Trade/Grade Structure Promotion/Recruitment Rules of 1983. He should also be given Group IV from date of promotion or re-designated as fitter as provided for the skilled workers under the said Trade/Grade Structure Promotion/Recruitment Rules which were framed in terms of the Agreement between Management and the C.BA., dated 25-10-1982 and that his existing pay and grade should be so fixed accordingly, so that he should not draw pay less than that of his junior Abdur Rasheed Tariq.

10. The appellant also claims arrears from the date of his appointment, as was granted to Abdur Rasheed Tariq by the learned Labour Court. The mere fact that back arrears of the salary from the date of appointment was granted to one worker by the learned Labour Court does not create a right in other workers to get the arrears of pay from the date of the appointment. The case of payment of arrears has to be decided in accordance with law. There is no Settlement with regard to payment of arrears of pay. Arrears of pay would amount to deducted or withheld salary which is recoverable under the Payment of Wages Act for three years before the institution of proceedings. If the E workman chooses to recover his withheld amount of salary through Labour Court under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969, the same period of limitation would also operate. Therefore he could claim arrears of withheld salary for three years before the institution of grievance petition. I accordingly order that after the pay of the appellant is fixed in accordance with the orders of this Tribunal he should be paid the difference of the pay drawn by him and pay so fixed since three years before the institution of grievance petition. The above order to be implemented within three months. M.Y.H./1808/Lb. S Appeal allowed.