1989 PLP 711 (PLC(CS))

The appeals captioned above emerge from the decision dated 6‑4‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petitions of the respondents of both the appeals were accepted and they were directed to be regularised and given benefits of revision of pay scales of 1972 with effect from 1‑7‑1973. Since the grievance petitions and the appeals involve common questions of fact and law and both the grievance petitions were decided by the learned lower Court by a single decision, both the appeals are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The respondents in both the appeals were employed as mates/baildars and their services were regularised with effect from 1‑7‑1984. They brought grievance petitions claiming that they were entitled to be regularised with effect from 1‑7‑1972. The basis of the claim of the respondents for regularisation with effect from 1‑7‑1972 is the revision of pay scales and the regulations of Zilla Council, whereby it was decided that the services of mates and baildars be regularised and they be given pay scales of 1972‑73 meant for civil servants.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised question of limitation stating that the grievance petitions of the respondents were time‑barred, inasmuch as they were regularised with effect from 1‑7‑1984 but the grievance petitions were brought in September, 1987. This is true that the services of the respondents were regularised with effect from 1‑7‑1984 but the learned counsel for the appellant has not pointed out on what date the order of regularisation of the services of the respondents was passed and when intimation of it was given to them. He has also shown his inability to point out when, according to the regularisation of service with effect from 1‑7‑1984, first of all the wages were paid to the respondents so that it may be seen on what date the cause of grievance arose to the respondents. Merely because the services of the respondents were regularised with effect from 1‑7‑ 1984 is not sufficient to show that the grievance notices and the grievance petitions were time‑barred. The respondents could challenge the regularisation from the date on which they were informed or wages were paid accordingly. The appellant, therefore, failed to establish that either the grievance notices or the grievance petitions were time‑barred.'

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that the respondents have no right guaranteed by any law, settlement or award, therefore they could not come to the Labour Court. Exh.P‑5 is the decision of the members of Zila Council but this decision cannot be taken to be a decision of any Labour Court. Likewise, it does not come within the purview of settlement as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. But Exh.R‑3 is the revision of pay scales declared by the Government and Exh.P‑5 is its adoption. The revision of scales had the force of law and thus it can be said that since vide Exh.P‑5 revision of pay scales given in Exh.R‑3 were adopted, the respondents had a right guaranteed by law to claim regularisation of the said scales with effect from the date of adoption. Exh.P‑5, therefore, may not be a settlement but since by it the revision of pay scales was adopted, the respondents got a right guaranteed by law and on the basis of the said documents, the learned lower Court has rightly directed the appellant to regularise the service of the respondent with effect from 1‑7‑1973.

5. The other angle through which the case may be viewed is that since Zilla Council is an autonomous body not running by or under the authority of any Government, Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies. According to Standing Order 1, the employees, who satisfactorily complete the probationary period of three months and are serving against the posts which are of permanent nature, stand confirmed. The respondents are serving as mates and baildars since long therefore, it cannot be said that the posts held by them are not of permanent nature. They thus are permanent employees and for this reason also the impugned decision is unexceptional.

6. As a result, the appeals fail and are dismissed. AA./560/Lb. P Appeals dismissed.