1988 PLP 512 (PLC)

Syed Intisar Hussain for Appellant. H.R. Haider for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th January, 1987. The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 29‑10‑1986 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan whereby the appellant was directed to fix the pay of the respondent in scale No.3 with one additional increment with effect from 1‑11‑1984 and to treat him as permanent Keyman.

2. The facts are that the respondent was a Gangman and was posted as Keyman in officiating capacity with effect from 1‑11‑

84. His pay was not fixed in the pay scale of the Keyman, he, therefore, brought the grievance petition on 23‑6‑

85. In the pendency of the grievance petition the pay of the respondent was fixed in scale No.3 with effect from 1‑12‑1983 and when the said post was placed in scale‑4 his pay was fixed in the said scale. In order copy of which is Ex.R‑1, it is mentioned that he had qualified for the duties of Keyman.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the respondent was not selected for the post of Keyman and that he had wrongly stated so in his statement and further that as contended in the written statement there are many persons senior to him, therefore, he could not be confirmed as Keyman and placed in the scale of the said post. No evidence was produced by the appellant except Ex.R‑

1. The oral statement of the respondent to the effect that he was selected for the post of Keyman, therefore, was not rebutted. Ex.R‑1 rather supports the case of the respondent inasmuch as it is mentioned therein that he had qualified for the post of Keyman. What the respondent wanted was given to him by passing order, copy of which is Ex. R‑1 except that he was not treated as a regularised and confirmed Keyman. He demanded scale No.3 which vide order Ex.R‑1 was given to him. Learned counsel for the respondent has said that even arrears have been paid. No doubt, in the written statement it is contended that these were seniors to the respondent but neither any question was put in cross‑examination to the respondent in this respect nor any evidence oral or documentry was produced to rebut his oral statement. Since what the respondent wanted had been given to him vide order Ex.R‑1 during the pendency of the case, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant has no force that the respondent was not selected for the post of Keyman and that there were seniors to him. If he had not been selected or if he had seniors who had been selected, the department would not have placed the respondent A in the scale of Keyman and paid to him arrears. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court rightly accepted the grievance petition of the petitioner.

4. As a result there is no force in the appeal which is dismissed. A.E/268/Lb.P?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.