The petitioner had been appointed as a Junior Clerk against a vacant post on 17th January, 1973, on the terms and conditions as were contained in Annex. `A'. On 31st January, 1973, an office circular was issued to state; "The fixation on this basis (i. e. By allowing personal pay) is to be made only in respect of those employees who were appointed between 17-10-1972 and 24-1-1973, or appointment letters were issued to them during this period. In case of appointments after 24-1-1973, the question of allowing any Personal Pay would not arise."
2. The above circular was later modified on 21st March, 1974, as follows :----- "Similar treatment should also be afforded to officers appointed between the period from 1-1-1973 to 15-3-1973, as regards merger of ad hoc relief with their basic pay is concerned.
Necessary action may be taken and arrears, if any, disbursed accor--dingly."
3. The benefits provided in the above two circulars were denied to the petitioner. Consequently, he made a representation which was finally decided on 10th December, 1974, holding that he was not eligible.
4. On 18th July; 1975, the petitioner served a notice under section 25-A of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968, on the respondent. He was informed, vide order dated 1st August, 1975, that the notice was under consideration. His pay, however was not increased and no further action taken. Consequently, the petitioner approached the Labour Court under section 25-A of the industrial Relations Ordinance. His application succeeded theca on 25th November, 1976. The Labour Court allowed to the petitioner the benefit of the merger of ad hoc relief and special allowance and directed that his basic pay be revised. The respondent filed an appeal which succeeded before the Appellate Tribunal on 10th August, 1977. It held that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel that the Appellate Tribunal ran in error in holding that the notice under section 25-A should have been served on the respondent within three months on 10th December, 1974, when his request for a relief was refused by the employer. He further submitted that it was a recurring cause of action which could be renewed every month and consequently the order passed by the Labour Court was quite valid.
6. It is quite clear from the portions of two circulars reproduced above that the petitioner was entitled to the benefits and that the same had been unlawfully refused to him by the respondent.
He was, therefore, lawfully entitled to receive the same and the decision of the Labour Court did not suffer from any defect on its merit.
7. The only question on which the Appellate Tribunal upset the finding of the Labour Court is that as a notice sent by the petitioner under sec--tion 25-A was rejected by the employer on 10th December, 1974, he ought to have filed a petition under section 25-A before the Labour Court within three months. The Labour Court had interfered in the matter on the ground that it was a recurring loss. The Tribunal did not agree with that contention as according to it only one notice had to be given within time after the cause of action arose. It may, however, be noted that the cause of action would accrue to the petitioner every month and he could send a notice every month to the employer to make payment. Consequently, the notice Exh. P, F. Was quite valid and as proceedings had been taken within time after that notice, the view taken by the Labour Court was quite correct.
For the reasons given above, the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The result is that the order of the Labour Court shall be implemented. There will, however, be no order as to costs.