1976 PLP 12 (PLC)

Sadullab Mumtaz for Appellant. Tariq Mahmud for Respondent. This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 23-11-74 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi by which petition of the appellant under section 25-A of the I. R. O. was rejected, hence this appeal.

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that appellant joined service as a Storekeeper on 5-9-67. According to Exh. PB after completing a training period of six months be was to be fixed in senior scale of Rs. 75-6-105/7-175. It was not done in his case till 27-5-74. Again on the report Exh. PF of his superior, he was put to a lower scale of Rs. 60-4-100 on 23-8-74. This is admitted by the respondent in his written reply that in spite of his degradation, he remained working on the senior scale till 18-9-74. This is again admitted position of the parties that the appellant went on making representations after 4-3-68 uptil 27-5-74. No decision was taken on his representations. Now through his petition under section 25-A of the I R. O., appellant has claimed his arrears as a Storekeeper senior scale since 4-3-68 uptil 27-5-74 and has also claimed senior scale since 23-8-74.

3. Before the Junior Labour Court, learned counsel placed reliance on a ruling in which it was held that his claim was time barred. But that ruling was in a case where the employer had taken his decision on represen tations or on legal grievance notice.

4. In this case no decision was ever taken. Appellant kept on making representations throughout. Therefore, element of laches is not involved. Again the appellant was put to a junior scale from 23-8-74 on the report of Assistant Traffic Manager which is Exh. PF on the file. The said Traffic Manager has reported that I have found the appellant to be lethargic, muddle headed and extremely irresponsible. He offends his superiors. He cannot be entrusted with the position where money transactions are involved. He carries an impeachable reputation. This report was not conveyed to him and he was never charge-sheeted on this report. Therefore it could not be made base of the degradation of the appellant. Appellant was kept on a junior scale from 1968 to 1974 against the rules and there is nothing on record to show that he was not a fit person to be entitled to a senior scale. Appellant was entitled for senior scale from 4-3-68. Again his degradation from 23-8-74 was un-warranted.

4. I, therefore direct the Management to pay his arrears from 4-3-68 to 27-5-74 and to put him on senior scale again from 23-8-74. These arrears'' should also be paid to the appellant fortwith.

5. For the foregoing discussion order of the Junior Labour Court is set aside and appeal is accepted. Appeal accepted.