1970 PLC 186 (PLP)

Scale of pay of challandars higher than of stores issuer; be given to challandars as they are promoted from stores issuer after qualifying in written‑cure‑interview test."

14. The learned Industrial Court rejected the demand mostly on the ground that it was a belated demand, inasmuch as the scale of pay, which the Challandars were drawing, was fixed on let January 1949.

15. On behalf of the Union Muhammad Abdul Khaliq, Challandar, was examined. He gave the following grounds for better pay for Chaliandars, namely :‑ (1) Challandar is promoted by selection from Store Issuer. (2) Store Issuer works in one section, while the Challandar in three or four sections. (3) The work of the Store Distributor and that of Challandar is in nature the same. Both distribute stores in different way. The Challandar distributes store locally, while Store Distributor distributes on the line. (4) Prior to 1949, the pay of Challandar was higher than store Issuer.

16. Muhammad Abdul Khaliq also stated that they had made representations to the Administration, but they were rejected.

17. Before considering the demand for better pay it is necessary to observe that the Industrial Court must resist the temptation of comparing pay of various functionaries in the same Department. The Government is expected to act justly, C and fairly having regard to the performance of duty by its employees. The Industrial Court would not readily disturb the pay‑structure fixed by the Government, unless it appears on, the face of it to be unfair and unjust. The policy of the Pakistan Pay Commission in 1948, was to give benefit to all sections of Railway Employees. It cannot be denied that Challandars did benefit from the recommendations of the Pay Commission. The result of the Commission was that their pay --scale from Rs. 40‑60, was raised to Rs. 85‑‑2‑

115. In the result, the Challandars pay was almost doubled. The fact that others also got the same pay cannot be a fair and reasonable ground for increase in the pay of Challandars. Indirectly the contention that Store Issuers should not have got the same pay as Challandars, as they were getting lesser pay prior to 1949, may come to this that the pay of Store Issuers should be reduced. This would be beyond the power of the Court. To give the same pay to Challandars as to Store Distributors would also amount to promoting Challandars as Store Distributors. The admitted position is that Challandars after. selection are promoted as Store Distributors. To enhance the pay of Challandars to that of Store Distributors would, as I have already stated, amount to their promotion as Store Distributor. This cannot be done.

18. It is noteworthy that prior to 1949, there were two classes of Challandars, Senior Challandars and Challandars. It was only Senior Challandar's pay, which was equal to Store Distributor's while that of Challandar's was less. Admittedly, the number of Senior Challandars was much less than that of Challandars. The position, as it stands today, is that Challandars have also been merged with Senior Challandars. If the Challan dare are put. at par with Store Distributors, it would mean that the Challandars, who were always inferior to Store Distributors are equated with them. This would be unreasonable. The policy of Pakistan Pay Commission was telescope quite a large number of existing pre-1949 scales with the prescribed scales, which came into force with effect from 1st January 1949. The result was that single prescribed scale of Rs. 40-60, for Senior Challandars and stored Issuers was laid down. The consolidated scales of pay, which., later on announced by the Government was based on the prescribed scale of Rs. 40 60, for Challanders and store Issue was equated with the single consolidated scale of Rs. 85 -

115. The Government is supposed to bear in mind while equating the pay-scale the importance of the job and work-load attached to the different.) posts. There is no doubt that there is difference in the job of Store Issuers and Challandars. This fact itself is not sufficient to promote Challandars as Store Distribution. As I have already observed that Challandars have benefited almost twice by consolidated scale of pay than what they were getting in 1949. The fact that others have been also given the same pay as Challandars is tan justification for increase in the pay of

8. Challandars. No case for further increase of pay of Challandars has been made out. I do not see any person to interfere with the order passed by the learned Industrial Court on Demand No. 6(c) Demand No. 6(d), reads as under:-- Sub-State keepers, all categories of P.W.R. having the pay-scales of Rs. 185-45. But there is departure from this principle in case of Sub-State Keeper and whose scale of pay has been fixed as Rs. 225-400 against scale of Rs. 185-300 scale of Rs.275 400 as originally published in the booklet circulated to M.P.A s should be given.

19. The learned industrial Court granted the demand as under.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that only that category of Sub-Store Keepers who were at the relevant time, i.e. at the time of consideration of scales of pay, in the grade of Rs. 185-300, should be given the scale of a Depot Store-Keeper. However, those Sub-Store Keepers, who were in the junior grade, i.e. Rs. 125-225, have no claim to be given the scales of pay of Depot Store Keeper. Furthermore, the scale of pay of Depot Store-Keeper shall not be available to the freshly recruited or freshly promoted Sub-Store Keeper.

20. The learned Industrial Court rightly came to the conclusion that there was no justification for same Consolidated scale of pay to Sub-Store Keepers, who were in the grade of Rs. 185-300, as given to Depot Store keepers in similar grade of pay of Rs. 185-300. A careful perusal of Demand No. 6(d), itself would indicate the Union's demand is confined to those Sub-Store Keepers, who were in the scale of pay 'of Rs. 185-300, and not those who were in the scale of pay of Rs. 125.-225. The learned Industrial Court, therefore, rightly observed that Sub-Store Keepers, who were in the junior grade of R s. 125-225, were not entitled to the scale of pay given to the employees in the grade of Rs. 185-300.

21. The question now is as to whether the limitation put by the Court that the scale .of pay to Depot Store Keepers will hot be available to freshly promoted or freshly recruited Sub-Store Keepers is justified. It appears to me that the limitation is not fair and there is no valid ground to exclude these persons from the benefit of the award. All those Sub Store Keepers, who were is the grade of Rs. 185-300, and also freshly recruited or freshly promoted Sub-Store Keepers in the grade of Rs. 185--300, should be entitled to the grade of Depot Store Keepers. Demand No. 6(e), reads as under:- "Consolidated pay of scales of Stores Assistant Jamadar should beat par with that of Workshop Assistant Jamadar as nature of duty is similar."

22. It is only in glaring cases when the fixation of pay by the Government is patently and obviously unjust and unfair 4hat a plea for increase of further pay should be entertained. In such matters the Industrial Court must take an overall practical and common sense view. Thus, it may be stated as a rule that unless as a result of revision in pay of workmen, if particular category of workmen have been ignored or the increase in their pay is patently disproportionate to the increase of pay of similar workmen, the Court will be reluctant to interfere with the order of the Government in implementing the Pay Commission's Report. Keeping the principles, which I have laid down for myself, I will now proceed to consider Demand No. 6(e).

23. The admitted position is that the Stores Assistant Jamadars and Workshop Assistant Jamadars are both selected from amongst the coolies. Their next promotion is as Stores Jamadars. It has not been challenged that the scale of pay of lower grade, i.e. as coolies and higher grade on promotion as Stores Jamadars is the same. It has also not been disputed before me that the old and revised scale of pay for Stores Assistant Jamadars and Workshop Assistant Jamadars was the same. The Fay Commission, for the reasons which have not been disclosed before me, gave different prescribed scales of pay to Stores Assistant Jamadars and Workshop Assistant Jamadars, The prescribed scale of pay for Stores Assistant Jamadars was Rs. 38-45, and that for Workshop Assistant JamaJars Rs. 40-60. One also fails to understand that while there was a difference of only two rupees in the starting pay, the difference in the maximum pay is of Rs. 15.00. On the basis of the prescribed scale of pay for the two Assistant Jamadars, different consolidated scale of pay naturally had to be fixed.

24. On behalf of the workmen, Sardar Ali Assistant Jamadar his been examined. He stated that the revised and oil scale of pay of both the Assistant Jantadar, was the same and that they were both promoted from coolies. He further stated that the next promotion of Stores Assistant Jamadars and Workshop Assistant Jamadars is as Stores Jamadars. Accord ing to him, the duties and responsibilities of both the Assistant Jamadars is the same. Nothing has been made out in the cross‑examination of Sardar Ali to disclose that what he stated in his examination‑in‑chief was not correct. On the other hand, on behalf of the Department Mr. Abdul Hameed, Assistant Controller of Stores (R. NY. 1), had been produced. He produced Exhs.R‑1 and R‑2, giving the respective duties of Stores Assistant Jamadars and those of Workshop Assistant Jamadars. It would be useful to reproduce his cross‑examination, which is as under:‑ "The Jamadars in the Store segregate the materials also. I do not know if the Jamadars of Workshop know the work of segregating the materials. The Jamadars in Store can differentiate and know the carriage and wagon and locomotive duplicates but the others do not. I do not know if Jamadars of the Workshop can do. Jamadars of the Store are fully trained for the safety.‑‑First measure in handling of material. I do not know Jamadars of Workshop are trained. The Assistant Jamadars of Store know the handling of loading and unloading of the machinery. I do not know Jamadars of Workshop know this work."

25. A perusal of the statement of Mr. Abdul Hameed, who was the only witness on behalf of the Department would disclose that it is. doubtful if Jamadars of the Workshop can perform the duties. which are performed by Assistant Jamadars of Store Department: .

26. A Duty List of Stores Assistant Jamadars and Workshop Assistant Jamadars had been produced by the Departmebt. They are Exhs. R‑I and R‑

2. It would be useful to reproduce the Duty List of these two categories of Assistant Jamadars. The Duty List of Stores Assistant Jamadars is as under:‑ "(a) Loading of material issued to indentors and unloading of material received for stock and issue, (b) Unloading the wagons containing scrap materials in mixed up condition returned by the various Officers on P. W, Railway and stacking them in the Yards in the form of lots after segregating the same. (c) Cleanliness of the Wards of Sections/Depots. (d) Unloading receipts from wagons, sort out different items and segregate quantities received with defects. (e) Taking necessary preventive measures for items which require safe custody. These consist of spraying disinfectant on various types of brushes, periodic turning over of woollen garments and keeping napthalene balls therein and providing oiling and greasing to items like taps, dies, etc. etc.".

27. The Duty List of Workshop Assistant Jamadars is as under :‑ (1) To supervise and keep proper control on coolies work in under him. (2) Must be aware of all safety‑first measures while handling material. (3) Responsible for removal of shop scrap of cutting. (4) To draw scrap material from shops on requisition. (5) Movement of material from section to section along with the move order and to shift load unload heavy machinery from one place to another. (6) To supervise the cleanliness of Shops. (7) To supervise the staff (coolies) in loading and unloading the material from the wagons. (8) To use all type of knots according to requirement."

28. A perusal of the duties of both the Assistant Jamadars would indicate that the duties of Stores Assistant Jamadars appear to be a little more onerous. In this connection, I would particularly mention the Duty List R‑1 (e) of Stores Assis tant Jamadars.

29. I have come to the conclusion that there is no reasonable ground for giving a different scale of pay to Stores Assistant Jamadars than given to Workshop Assistant Jamadars. It is not a case where some other workmen, who did not deserve, had been given the same pay as Workshop Assistant not The grievance in this case is that the Stores Assistant Jamadars, whose duty is similar, perhaps more onerous than that of Workshop Assistant Jamadars, have been treated unjustly and unfairly in fixation of their pay. The learned Advocate, who appeared for the Department, was unable to give me any ground for distinction in pay of Stores Assistant Jamadars and that of Workshop Assistant Jamadars. In the interest of harmony and peace of working in the Department, it is necessary that the workmen should be treated fairly. I would, for the reasons given above, accept the demand and order that the Stores Assistant Jamadars should be given the same pay as Workshop Assistant Jamadars, from the date of strike notice, raising the demand in question. The arrears to be paid in two instalments if the Department so desires.