BAHADUR ALI Versus AFSAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD.

This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 9‑7‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for the award of four advance increments under the incentive scheme was accepted.

2. The respondent who is an Assistant Station Master was only a Matriculate when he had joined service. He passed the B.A. examination in third division on 29‑10‑1970 and applied for the grant of four advance increments. The prayer was disallowed by the appellant on the sole ground that he had improved the qualification in third division. On behalf of the appellant it was also contended in the written statement that the petition was time‑barred and that the grievance notice had not been served. The respondent did not file grievance petition directly in the Labour Court and first of all moved the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. His prayer was granted but on appeal it was held that the Authority had no jurisdiction. He, therefore, after the service of grievance notice brought the grievance petition. The Labour Court had held on 19‑6‑1983 that the Authority had no jurisdiction. Grievance notice was sent on 4‑9‑1983. The objection with regard to limitation raised by the appellant is misconceived. The respondent did not bring the grievance petition under section 25‑A therefore, no question of limitation could arise. The petition was brought under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Vide notification SRO No. E1/83‑NI/1 the category, A to which the respondent belonged, was deemed to fall within the category of employer and this was the reason that the respondent had brought petition under section 34 of the Ordinance.

3. On merits too the respondent has good case. The appellant had disallowed four advance increments under the incentive scheme for the reason that the respondent had improved his qualification in third division, whereas the requirement of law was that only those employees who belong to class‑III service could claim benefits of the incentive scheme who had passed B.A. examination in second division. The provision of law is that only those servants belonging to class‑III service are entitled to the benefit of incentive scheme who had obtained qualification meant for class‑II service. The incentive scheme was initially started by the Government and the Railway Department adopted the same. In the Government, no doubt, eligibility for class‑II service for employees belonging to class‑III is B.A. second division but in Railways no direct appointment is made in class‑II service. The employees already serving are promoted to class‑II service and for that there is no provision that they should be B.A, second division. If the Railway wanted that only those class‑III employees could be entitled to the benefits of the incentive scheme who had improved their qualification by getting degree of B. A. in second division, the rules in this respect should have been framed. No doubt, instructions have been issued in this respect but mere instructions are not B sufficient. Either the rules should have been framed by the law making body or amendment should have been made that vacancies in class‑II service would be filled in by direct appointment and for that qualification would be B.A. second division. The respondent, therefore, has been rightly allowed benefits of the incentive scheme by the learned lower Court.

4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

A. E. /274/Lb.P

Appeal dismissed.