1988 PLP 241 (PLC)

The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision dated 29‑10‑1986 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and the appellant was directed to fix the pay of the respondent in the scale of Keyman with effect from 15‑1‑1981 and further fixed his pay in the scale of the post of Mate with effect from 15‑4‑1984 and to allow him yearly increments from 1‑12‑1984 and to treat him as permanent Mate.

2. The facts are that the respondent was a Gangman and he was put to officiate as Keyman and then as Mate without allowing him the scale of said posts. He, therefore, brought grievance petition for getting the abovementioned relief.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the respondent has not yet been selected for the posts of Keyman and Mate and that he has many seniors, therefore, his grievance petition was wrongly accepted by the learned lower Court. The respondent in his statement deposed that he had been duly selected. No oral evidence was produced by the appellant to rebut the statement of the respondent. The appellant contented himself that the production of copy Exh. R.1 of the order dated 16‑7‑1986 which shows that in pendency of the grievance petition, the respondent was allowed scale No.3 of post of the Keyman with effect from 1‑12‑1983 and on 15‑4‑1986 he was further promoted as Mate and his pay was fixed in scale No.4. He was allowed annual increment on 1‑12‑1984. On 16‑4‑1985 when the post was placed in scale No. 5 his pay was fixed in the said scale and on 1‑12‑1985 he was allowed yearly increment. What the respondent wanted was, therefore, given to him vide order Exh. R‑1 except this that he was not treated as a regular and permanent Keyman and Mate. No doubt, in the written statement it was contended that there were seniors to the respondent, but no evidence, oral or documentary was produced in support of it. The order EXh. R-1 rather supports the case of the respondent. If there had been seniors to the respondent or if he had not been selected for the posts of Keyman and Mate, if at all selection was necessary, he would not have been allowed the pay scales of the said posts one after the other. It is very strange that what the respondent wanted was given A to him vide order Exh.R.1 in the pendency of the grievance petition and yet the order of the learned lower Court was challenged appeal. The learned lower Court in these circumstances was justified in accepting the grievance petition.

4. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed. A. E. /267/Lb. P Appeal dismissed.