TAMIZUDDIN AHMAD KHAN Versus PAKISTAN STEEL

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order dated 7‑1‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as record‑keeper in the respondent establishment on 4‑6‑1981 in the pay Group IV of wage rate of Rs.250‑15‑490, instead of his appointment in pay Group V of wage rates of Rs.375‑25‑700, as is being given to other record‑keepers of the establishment, particularly, to one namely Mr. Haleem who was also appointed as .Record Keeper in the year 1976. It was also a case of the appellant that there was no different pay Group and wage rate of the category of the workman, i.e. Record Keeper since 1976 and in the year 1981, except there was a pay Group V of the wage rate of Rs.375‑25‑700 which also had the similar nature of work. The appellant claimed to have approached the respondent establishment to remove these irregularities and to bring it at par to the appellant with compensation in the pay Group V, as it was‑provided to the workers, holding the same category and that though a settlement between the respondent establishment and the C. B. A Union was arrived at on 23‑4‑1984 to remove the irregularities or aw‑/ injustice done in this behalf, but as his grievance was not redressed, therefore, he filed his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, before the learned Labour Court.

3. The case of the respondent establishment before the learned Labour Court was that in accordance with the settlement arrived at between the management and the C.B.A Union on 23‑4‑1984, it was agreed that the individual cases shall be dealt with on merits, on case to case basis and in pursuance of the terms of the said settlement, it had appointed an Anamoly Committee to deal with each individual case. The said committee came to a decision in this manner.

"Record Keeper whose names are given in the list Annexure II were appointed as Record Keepers on 4‑6‑1981 in pay Group IV. One Mr. A. Haleem was also appointed as Record Keeper but he was given pay Group V at the time of his appointment viz. in November 1976. They desire that they may also be allowed pay Group V.

The Committee decided that since they are pay Group as prescribed for Record Keepers in the Revised Recruitment Rules, there is no anomaly in their scale of pay."

Further, the case of the respondent establishment was that neither the grievance petition of the appellant was maintainable under section 25‑A, I. R. O., 1969, nor it was within time.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits in evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has dismissed the petition, hence this appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ahmad, the learned Advocate for the appellant and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. This is a‑n admitted position that an anomaly committee was constituted to deal and decide the individual cases of anomaly on merit, on case to case basis and the point of reference was that the Record Keepers whose names were given in the list Annexure II were appointed as Record Keepers on 4‑6‑1981 in pay Group IV and in November 1976, when one Mr. A. Haleem was appointed as a Record Keeper in pay Group V, there was no pay Group for Record Keepers. It is also an admitted position of the appellant that he is a signatory to the appointment Letter Exbt.A/6 on the record that on the interview, and test made, the appellant accepted the appointment order with all the terms and conditions to be binding on him and obviously he accepted Group IV in the salary of Rs. 310 as starting in basic salary with 25% increment annually reaching the scale of 560. The learned Labour Court in its detailed and convincing impugned order had repelled the contentions of the appellant and A thereby dismissed the petition. Mr. Muhammad Ahmad, the learned Advocate for the appellant has failed either to refer any documents or submit any authority in support of his case. It would hold that there is nothing wrong with the impugned order and the learned Labour Court has rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.

A. E. /968/Lb. S

Appeal dismissed.