NAJEEB-UR-RAHN:AN Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

This appeal under section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, has been moved against the order dated 14‑9‑1991 of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Peshawar, whereby the grievance petition filed by the petitioner‑appellant under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. for fixation of his pay in Grade BPS‑9 was dismissed.

2. The relevant background which led to the litigation between the parties narrated in concise form is that the petitioner‑appellant joined service of the respondent‑Authority on 1‑6‑1983 as Field Assistant in BPS‑5 who was subsequently upgraded and placed in BPS‑6 vide Office Order dated 1‑10‑1989. By Notification No FD(SR‑1) 1‑67/83, dated 24‑8‑1983 (henceforth to be referred to as the Notification) issued by the Government of N: W.F.P. Finance Department, 1/3rd of the total posts of the Field Assistants in BPS‑6 were given selection grade in B‑9, therefore, the petitioner‑appellant claimed that on account of this Notification he qualifies to be upgraded to selection grade B‑9. In the written statement the respondent controverted the allegations levelled in the grievance petition and it was averred that the impugned Notification would not apply to the employees of the `Authority'.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant at the outset submitted that the grievance petition has not been happily drafted as all that the appellant wants is fixation of pay in selection Grade‑9 on the basis of the Notification referred to above and not promotion. This submission was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent as according to him what is prayed in the grievance petition is promotion and not upgradation. The allegations in the petition in substance would reveal that the appellant wants fixation of his pay in Selection Grade‑9 although in form in the petition he has described this relief as promotion to Selection Grade BPS‑9.1, therefore, agree with the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant because substance of the petition must be preferred to its form. In order to do complete justice in judicial proceedings hyper technicalities should be avoided. It was next argued that the `Authority' established under the North‑West Frontier Province Agricultural Development Authority Ordinance, 1988 can, under section 20 of the Ordinance, make its own rules with the approval of the Government but no such rules have so far been framed in respect of Chapter 4 captioned as `Pay and Allowances' as given in the Agricultural Development Authority N: W.F.P. Administration Procedure Rules. It was in this context submitted that till such time the authority frames its own pay and allowances/regulations it would adopt the same standard of pay and allowances as are admissible to the employees of similar categories of the other Organisations or in absence of that of the Government Employees. It was conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that no rules/regulations have so far been framed to govern the pay and allowances of the employees of the `Authority'. It could also not be denied that uptil now the regulations/circulars etc. of the Provincial Government in respect of pay and allowances have been followed. It was next pointed out that in case of Mr. Abdul Wakeel, Field Assistant, ADA, the Notification referred to above was followed and he was allowed Selection Grade (B‑9) on the strength of this very Notification. This submission was termed as frivolous and misconceived by the learned Advocate of the other side as according to him the Notification cannot be made applicable to the employees of the `Authority'. I agree with the legal position as clarified by the learned counsel for the appellant as in view of the relevant provisions enumerated above and in absence of the rules/regulations of the `Authority' the rules and regulations applicable to the Government employees or the employees of the other Organisations would apply in case of the appellant regarding pay and allowances. This legal position has been admitted by the respondent itself as in case of Abdul Wakeel indicated above the Notification was followed. The learned Advocate of the respondent also argued that the appellant does not qualify for Selection Grade but I would not give any finding on this aspect of the case as I have made up mind to remand the case to the learned Labour Court.

This appeal is, therefore, accepted, the order of the Labour Court is set aside and it is held that Notification No. FD(SR‑1)1‑67/83, dated 24‑8=1983 would govern the case of the appellant. This case is remanded to the Labour Court, Peshawar to find out as to whether the appellant is qualified under the Notification for the relief sought in grievance petition. The Labour Court should afford both the sides fair opportunity to lead evidence in support of their viewpoints. Both the sides are directed to appear before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Peshawar on 13‑3‑1993. No order as to costs.

H.B.T./157/Lb.N Case remanded.