KHALID HUSSAIN Versus PAKISTAN STEEL KARACHI

DECISION

These fourteen appeals call in question the order of the Labour Court dismissing the petition filed under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969.

2. Shorn of details the facts leading to these appeals are as follows.

3. In August, 1980, the Metallurgical Training Centre (MTC) of the Pakistan Steel Mills issued an advertisement for admission to the `Artisan Training' Course, which was to last for two years. There were different categories of training but the one which is relevant for our purposes is that of Spectral Analyst'.

4. On the completion of their training, the petitioners were given different assignments. There was a protest with the result that by a `Corrigendum', dated 20‑4‑1983, the designation of this class was changed. Some of them came to be designated as `Spectral Lab. Assistant', some as `Tool Operators' and some as `Heat Treatment Worker'. It has been stated that all these designations "fall under the ambit of Spectral Analyst" and carry the same pay.

5. It appears that later on one Saeed Azmat came to be directly recruited as a `Polyvac Spectral Analyst' on 20‑4‑1981, without undergoing any training with a higher emolument. Representations followed. For aught we know the last one which is put on the record is dated 20‑12‑1989. But this also came to be rejected on 1‑7‑1990.

6. The Labour Court dismissed the petition on two grounds, firstly that the advertisement was only a `Notice' for training and it very clearly mentioned therein vide clause (iii) under the `General Instructions' that "this is a notice of admission in MTC, Pakistan Steel for training. Pakistan Steel is not bound to offer employment to candidates who successfully complete the training at MTC", and secondly that the petition was time‑barred.

7. The appellants right from the first day knew that things were not going their way. They state to have made representations but nothing had changed their designation and their emoluments. Their joint representation which was the last of the series had been turned down on 1‑7‑1990. This has not been specifically denied. All that was canvassed before me was that it was not communicated to them. But even that does not approximate with truth as it finds a place with all particulars, details and even the date, in the grievance notice of Moazzam Ali, which was read out to me. Demonstrably the time‑bar comes in, as under section 25‑A of I.R.O. the grievance notice had to be sent within three months to protect their rights. And looking to the circumstances, it can never be said, that there was any right to protect, as there was no breach of promise or contract.

8. There is no merit in these appeals. I will, therefore, dismiss them.

H.B.T./2153/Lb.S Appeals dismissed