1998 PLP 498 (PLC)

Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant. Ch. M. Khalid Farooq for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th November, 1997. Learned Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, on 16-7-1997, accepted the grievance petition of the respondents, under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, filed against the Punjab Road Transport Corporation and the later has come up in appeal to this Court, challenging the soundness of the decision.

2. It is such a simple matter that one has not to labour a lot in arriving at a correct conclusion, particularly when a witness of the Corporation, appearing as R.W.1, in the lower Court, has testified largely in favour of the grievance-petitioners. By the Notification FD-PC-II/1-87, dated 27-7-1987 selection grade was allowed to 33% Assistants, and they were placed in BPS-15. This Notification (Exh.P-1), was adopted by the PRTO by an order dated 13-8-1987 (Exh. P-2). It is conceded by R.W.1 that Assistants of Technical Branch, Planning, Labour Welfare, Technical Training and Stores had also been held entitled to the selection grade. The respondents were ignored for the simple reason that the Stores Wing did not find mention in the notification. Validity of documents Exhs. P-1 to 7 has not been questioned. As per seniority list, Exh. P-5, Muhammad Arif was at Serial No-2 and Muhammad Iqbal at Serial No. 7 Sajjad Haider Shah, who was at Serial No. 1, has since retired, and Muhammad Arif now figures at Serial No-1, it has been so deposed by Muhammad Arif as P.W.1. Assistants, working in different sections, perform the same nature of duty, and they are also placed in the same scale. There is then no earthly reason why discriminatory treatment should have been meted out to these persons. They were actually entitled to get the same selection grade, which their counter parts in the other wings or sections of the set-up were held entitled to have, on the basis of the Notification Exh. P-1.

3. Throughout this period, the grievance-petitioners plead to have incessantly been laying claim to the selection grade, and they have been entreating the Authorities, to grant to them, whatever was due, but without success. It cannot be disputed that the dues which one deserves to get during service is a cause of recurring nature. As such, it cannot be urged by the Corporation that the respondents had come to the Labour Court too late in the day, and the grievance notices, followed by the grievance petition, were barred by the law of limitation. When they lost all hopes, and met failure in their departmental representations and verbal requests, they opted to have recourse to the Labour Court for the requisite relief. The cause, therefore, could not be treated as having become time-barred. If the Organisation has been following the pay structure of the Punjab Government, for all of its employees, the respondents could not possibly be ignored, in the matter of grant of the selection grade.

4. As such, the learned Labour Court has committed no error and had not acted in an indulgent manner in allowing the grievance petition. Finding no justification for rescinding the impugned judgment, and seeing no merit in the appeal preferred by the Corporation, I proceed to dismiss it, although with no orders as to costs. A.A./921/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.