1986 PLP 23 (PLC)

4. The affidavit of Anwar Nadeem was filed on behalf of the C.B.A. and Asif Hassan, Deputy Manager filed an affidavit on behalf of the Management.

5. The arguments of the learned counsel of the parties were heard. The first objection raised by the learned counsel for the Management is that the instant petition is in reality under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and that the petition cannot be filed under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969. This objection was repelled in view of the authority reported in 1982 P L C 1034, whereby this Tribunal has held as under:‑‑ "Scope of section 34 limited to enforcement at rights guaranteed or secured to collective bargaining agent or employer. Such rights include 'collective rights of all workmen' and not rights of 'individual workers'. Total number of workers in company 1000 while grievance concerning drivers whose total strength in company only 7‑Matter, held one of individual grievance falling under section 25‑A. Collective Bargaining Agent not permitted to espouse cause of individual workman."

6. The present petition is confined to limited sections of the workers, namely, 13 Junior clerks and hence, section 34 of the I.R.O., 1969, would not apply and the grievance petition under section 25‑A, would apply.

7. The second point raised is regarding the notice of grievance to the employer. The applicant union being the C.B.A. brought the grievance of the said cause to the notice of the Management and record shows that on 1‑12‑1981, the said grievance notice was duly replied by the Management. The contention was with regard to the limitation. According to the Management, the cause of action accrued on 24‑7‑1979 while the present petition was filed in the Labour Court on 25‑1‑1982. The C.B.A. entered into correspondence after 24‑7‑1979 and the latest correspondence was in regard to the grievance notice, Annexure 'EA1 The time limit to be counted from 1‑12‑1981 i.e. the last reply of the Management.

9. The legal objections are answered as above. Now, I would come to the factual aspects and the circumstances of the case. The Wage Commission Award 1977 was emphasised by the respondents and its paragraphs 27, 65 and 66 were referred to in this appeal. Following are the paragraphs referred to:‑‑ "The pay scales should be concise, adequate and realistic. The number of scales has, therefore, been reduced, time span of the scales increased, the minimum pay for lower paid employee substantially increased, and the age old distinction between Class III and Class IV employees, removed. As far as possible there should be uniformity between the employees of the three corporations performing the same jobs, without withdrawing or reducing benefits at present available to any of them." "

65. The employees of all the three corporations have also demanded increased pay in the form of technical pay, advance increment or appointment to higher posts for such employers who possess or acquire academic qualifications higher than those prescribed for appointment to that post." "

66. We do not feel that it is as necessary for the corporation to induce their employers to acquire general academic degrees higher than what is required, as is the position regarding technical and professional qualifications. Employees who improve their academic qualifications become automatically fit to compete with others for appointment to post requiring such qualifications and together with their post experience of the work in the Corporation stand better chances of being selected in Preference to outsiders. They also improve their competitive position in the general job market. We, therefore, do not accept their demand."

10. Paragraph 27 refers to the minimum pay for lower paid employees is substantially increased and old age distinction between Class III and Class IV employees is removed. All the three corporations Performing the same job are reducing benefits et present available to all of them. This paragraph secures the benefit of the employees already granted to them. I am also referred to paragraph 25 where it is provided that allowance not commented upon in the reply should continue unchanged.

11. So far the paragraphs 65 or 66 are concerned, the meaning put to these paragraphs is that the three corporations have demented the increase pay in the form of technical pay, advance increments or appointment to higher pay of such an employee who Possess for appointment to that post. The recommendations are that those employees who improved their academic qualifications and became automatically fit to compete with others require such qualifications together with their past experience and are being selected for a particular post. The idea is that the selection to a particular post on the basis of experience and higher qualifications. These recommendations are made under paragraphs 65 and

66. In nutshell, the procedure is of select on and not of mere graduation. In this case the past experience also counts.

12. These recommendations are to be followed after 1‑7‑1971. The benefits received under Regulations of 1976 if they are prior to 1‑1-1977, they cannot be withdrawn.

13. As regards the remaining clerks, therefore, simple graduation do not give them a right to claim advance increments. The three clerks were granted advance increments earlier to Wage Commission Award 1977 and, therefore, the benefits received already cannot be with drawn and the remaining Junior Clerks were appointed after 1‑7‑1977, namely, the Wage Commission Award are not to be allowed. The order of the D learned Labour Court is, therefore, maintained and I hereby dismiss the two appeals. The benefits deposited in this Tribunal by the company be paid to the three persons, namely, (1) Gul Hassan; (2) Saleem Raza Rizvi; and (3) Anwar Nadeem. The remaining of the benefits may be claimed from the corporation. A.E. Orders accordingly