1976 PLP 329 (PLC)

This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 9-1-75 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi on a petition of the appellant, preferred under section 25-A of the

1. R. O., 1969. Petition of the appellant was accepted and it was directed that change in the seniority list should be made after giving a show-cause notice to the persons affected.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record of the Junior Labour Court as well as the impugned order.

3. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that provisions of section 25-A, subsection (5) have not been complied with. Parties led evidence and learned Presiding Officer of the Junior Labour Court did not go into all the facts of the case. Had he gone into all the facts of the case, he would have passed a just and proper order in the circumstances of the case.

4. Brief facts of the case are that appellant was a Ticket Collector and was promoted to grade II on 15-6-68. Seniority list Exh. PA was issued on 19-9-70, in which he was placed at No.

34. In that list a footnote was published in which the employees of this grade were asked to give information of any of the employees who have been omitted by mistake. Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were not included in that list and they never informed that they have been omitted. All the three respondents joined service as a temporary measure, pending regular selection on 5-6.67 as substitutes. They remained in service with one day break after every six months period. For reasons best known to the Management, conditions of minimum educational qualification and age limit were also relaxed in favour of all the three respondent. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were also exempted from training at the Walton Training School. Through Exh. RD respondents 3 to 5 ad hoc appointees were regularised and they were treated to be regular from the dates of their first appointments, All the fringe benefits were also made admissible to them on 6-12-73-Exh. PF is a circular letter of the Pakistan Western Railway regarding fixation of seniority of promotee staff v. v. direct recruits. According to clause 4 of this circular letter, term entry into grade has been defined.

5. Term entry into grade, means date from which the employee is appointed to a post and starts officiating regularly. According to clause 5 of the circular letter no person would attain seniority from a date prior to the date of regular entry into service or grade.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently stressed that as res pondents Nos. 3 to 5 have never intimated the department that they were neglected at the time of preparation of seniority list in 1970, therefore, they should have been placed junior to the employees whose seniority were already fixed. Entry into grade means a regular entry and not entry into officiating capacity or as substitutes and this was the belief of the respondents Nos. 3 and 5 and that is why they did not complain against the seniority list. Appellant has no grudge against the regular entry into grade II of respondents Nos. 3 to 5 as regards the fringe benefits which have been made admissible to the respondents. But these benefits do not mean that they should be placed senior to those appointees who have entered grade II regularly before the respondents who were never the regular employees, particularly without any show cause to the persons affected.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents has urged that according to subsection (6) of section 25-A, an individual can come to the Junior Labour Court for enforcement of any right guaranteed to him by any settlement, award or by any law. But in this case, no right is guaranteed to the appellant to come to the Junior Labour Court by any law, settlement or award.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has repelled this argument by refer ring to me Pakistan Western Railway, Advance Chapter No. I of Personnel Manual. Section 6 deals with the seniority anti according to para. 1 (d) of this Section, Ticket Collectors are required to pass an examination to qualify for appointment to the regular cadre. So, it becomes a right guaranteed to the individual, if his seniority is affected by any act of the Management.

9. Again the learned counsel for the respondents have stressed that entry into grade means, regular entry into grade. I am afraid, this cannot be interpreted like this. Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 had been working with the department in their officiating capacity and they were never the regular employees. There bad been breaks in their service as is clear from Exh. PD. They were never the regular employees before Exh. PD was passed and all the benefits could be made admissible to them from the dates of their first appointments. But they could not be put senior to the persons regularly entered into grade II before the service of the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were regularised with all the fringe benefits made admissible to them from the dates of their first appointments on ad hoc basis.

10. In view of the above discussion, I deem it just and proper to hold and direct the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 not to disturb the seniority of appellant which was fixed in 1970. In view of this finding, order of the Junior Labour Court is amended and appeal is accepted.