' JUSTICE (RETD.) TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI (CHAIRMAN).--- This judgment shall dispose of the following cases as common question of law and facts are involved in all these cases:--
(1) IT/P/199/06/C Khalid Mehmood (2) IT/P/2000/06/C Nasir Mahmood Chishti, (3) IT/P/201/06/C Najmul Islam Usmani, (4) IT/P/202/06/C Raja Abdul Aziz, (5) IT/P/203/06/C Nayyar Abbas Rizvi, (6)
IT/P/204/06/C Khalid Mahmood Khurram, (7) IT/P205/06/C Adnan Muzafar, (8) IT/P/206/06/C Abdul Hameed, (9) IT/P/207/06/SC Waseem Akhtar Malik; (10) IT/P/208/06/C Abdul Majeed Malik,
(11) IT/P/209/06/C Malik Nusrat Hussain Nasir, (12) IT/P/210/06/C Ayaz Humayun, (13) IT/P/211/06/C Asiya Perveen, (14) IT/P/212/06/C Jozaf A. Yazdani, (15) IT/P/213/06/C Nadeem Shahid, (16)
IT/P/214/C Khursheed Anwar, (17) IT/P/215/06/C Muhammad Azeem Khan, (18) IT/P/216/C Naseer Ahmed, (19) IT/P/217/06/C Laeeque Shaukat, (20) IT/P/218/-6/C Ghulam Akhtar, (21) IT/P/219/C Muhammad Zafar Ahmed (22) IT/P/220/06/C Syed Athar Hussain Naqvi, (23) IT/P/221/06/C Muhammad Afzal Goraya, (24) IT/P/222/06/C Muhammad Javed Jadoon, (25) IT/P/223/06/C Muhammad Arif Qureshi, (26) IT/P/224/06/C Muhammad Rafi Khawar, (27) IT/P/225/06/C Muneer Akhtar Bangash, (28) IT/P/226/06/C Syed Amir Ali, (29) IT/P/227/06/C Shabir Ahmed, (30)
IT/P/228/06/C Zahid Hussain Shah, (31) IT/P/229/06/C Muhammad Yusaf, (32) IT/P/230/06/C Gulshan Khan, (33) IT/P/231/06/C Muhammad Shaukat, (34) IT/P/232/06/C Muhammad Aleem- ud-Din, (35) IT/P/233/06/C Khanvaz Khan, (36) IT/P/234/06/C Hafiz Farman Ali, (37) IT/P/235/06/C Muhammad Zahid, (38) IT/P/236/06/C Zafar Iqbal, (39) IT/P/237/06/C Mushtaq Ahmed, (40)
IT/P/238/06/C Muhammad Sarwar, (41) IT/P/239/06/C Rao Istaqlal Ahmed, (42) IT/P/240/06/C Khalid Mahmood, (43) IT/P/241/06/C Ghulam Jafar, (44) IT/P/242/06/C Malik Nasir Kareem, (45)
IT/P/243/06/C Muhammad Sadiq Khan, (46) IT/P/244/06/C Muhammad Ashraf, (47) IT/P/245/06/C Muhammad Ayub, (48) IT/P/246/0.6/C Haji Shamraiz Khan, (49) IT/P/247/06/C Sardar Muhammad Saleem.
2. The petitioners are employees of the respondent-newspaper establishment in various capacities as mentioned in the respective petitions. The case of the petitioners is that they were allowed move-over by the respondent-establishment in terms of para.77(ii) of the 5th Wage Board Award.
The grievance of the petitioners is that although the respondent establishment has allowed them'move-over to the next higher grade yet they have not allowed the petitioners annual increment at the time of move-over in violation of the provisions of Par.77(iv) of the 5th Wage Board Award. The petitioners in each case have prayed for the grant of increment in the moved- over scale with effect from the date of move-over.
3. In order to support the claim of the petitioners, their learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Tribunal passed in case titled Arshad Mehmood and others v. Independent Newspaper Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. Dated 19-4-2000 and the judgment of the Honourable High Court passed in Writ Petition No,1578 of 2000 dated 26-1-2004. The precise submission made on behalf of the petitioners is that being permanent employees of the respondent-establishment, they were entitled to the terms of the employment with respect to wages etc. As regulated/determined through the relevant Wage Board Award. It is asserted that the petitioners at the time of move-over to the next higher grade were entitled to have their pay fixed at a stage next above the existing pay in the lower grade but while doing so the respondent had not allowed them the annual increment for the year immediately preceding the automatic move-over.
4. On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Advocate contents that paras.77(ii) and 77(iv) of the 5th Wage Board Award and together do not support the claim of the petitioners. According to him the petitioners had received all the due annual increments in the lower grade till they reached the ceiling of the lower grade. As per para.77(ii) (ibid) an employee becomes entitled to automatic move-over to the next higher grade only after completion of one year's satisfactory service after reaching the maximum stage of his pay scale. It is submitted that the effect of para.77(iv) of the 5th Wage Board Award will be to award the annual increment in the moved over grade after fulfilling the prescribed condition of putting in at least six months service in that grade. It is strongly contended that upon no basis can be petitioners claim any increment for the one year immediately preceding the move-over as no increment in the lower grade can be granted as he has already reached the maximum of his pay scale in the lower grade and that the petitioners shall not be entitled to any increment unless Moved over in which case they shall be entitled to annual increment(s) after completion of six months service in the moved over grade. It is submitted that this also is the ratio decidendi of the earlier judgments referred to by the petitioners.
5. Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warriach, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Advocate for the respondent have been heard and record perused.
6. For ready reference para.77(ii) and para. 77(iv) of the 5th Wage Board Award are reproduced as under:-- "77. (ii) Any employee who reaches the maximum stage of his pay scale applicable to the grade, after completion of one year's satisfactory service shall automatically move-over to the next higher grade, fixing his pay at such stage as falls next above his existing pay in lower grade."
7. Para. 77(iv) of the 5th Wage Board Award is reproduced below:-- "77 (iv) Annual increment shall be allowed on the 1st day of July every year to such employees, as have rendered till that date, six months or more service at a particular stage of a pay scale.
Employees who have not rendered at least six months service till that date, may get their next increment on the 1st day of July of the succeeding year."
8. The conjoint perusal of both these provisions of the Wage Board Award makes it manifest that para. 77(ii) deals with the provision of automatic move-over of a newspaper employee to the next higher grade. Thus, an employee who reaches the maximum stage of his pay scale (of course by earning the maximum annual increments in the lower scale) has to complete one year's satisfactory service before he can automatically move-over to the next higher grade. As per this provision. His pay shall be fixed at such stage in the moved over grade which falls next above his existing pay in the lower grade.
9. Para. 77(iv) (ibid) deals with the grant of annual increments generally. This para. Lays down, that annual increment shall be allowed on the 1st day of July every year to such employees who have rendered till that date six months or more service at a particular stage of a pay scale. As the provisions of this para. Are of general application, this would apply to annual increments either in the lower grade or in the moved over grade.
10. The claim of the petitioners as far as it relates to the grant of annual increment for the period of one year after attaining the maximum scale of pay in the lower grade and before the actual automatic move-over in the next higher grade is not supported, by either para.77(ii) or 77(iv) of the 5th Wage Board Award. The petitioners having reached the ceiling of the lower scale of pay could not be awarded any further annual increment till the actual move-over to the next higher grade took place. After the move-over, in terms of para.77(iv) (ibid), the petitioners shall be entitled to the grant of annual increment in the moved over grade, subject to fulfillment of the requirement of at least six months service as prescribed by this rule. The condition prescribed for earning increment by para.77(iv) is that an employee must have rendered till 1st July of every year, six months or more service at a particular stage of a pay scale. The petitioners had admittedly since reached the maximum of their respective pay scales after availing the maximum number of admissible increment and could earn no more in the lower scale. The term "at a particular stage of a pay scale" does not correspond to "having reached the maximum of a pay scale". The successful completion of one year's service after reaching the maximum of pay scale only entitles an employee to move-over.
11. I have examined the judgment passed by this Tribunal on 19-4-2000 as well as the judgment of the Honourable High Court dated 26-1-2004 and find strength for this conclusion from both the afore-cited judgment. The Honourable Chairman, ITNE concluded in his judgment dated 19-4-2000 as under:--- "(17) In view of the above discussion, it is held that the petitioners are entitled to the grant of annual increment in moved over, grade, over and above the grant of move-over to the next higher grade.
(18) The management is directed to fix the wages of the employees after allowing one increment w,e,f, the date of move-over to the aforesaid employees in their respective grades and shall pay them the arrears of their wages admissible to them as a result of their refixation of pay as aforesaid."
12. The -cumulative reading of these findings leave no manner of doubt that the Terminus Quo of the, eligibility to earn annual increments in the moved over grade would be the- date of move- over from which date as per para.77(iv) the six months or more service shall be computed.
13. The judgment of the Honourable High Court referred to above is also illuminative. It lays down that the move-over under para.77(ii) (ibid) is automatic subject to the completion of one year's satisfactory service after reaching the maximum stage of the pay -scale. The grant of annual increment in the moved over scale shall be subject to para.77(iv) of the 5th Wage Board Award as noticed by his Lordship Sardar Muhammad Aslam, J. In the judgment dated 26-1-2004.
14. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioners shall be entitled to the grant of annual increment after putting in six months or D more service in the moved over grade as per para.77(iv) of the 5th Wage Board Award.
15. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
16. This judgment shall have no effect on any past and closed transaction by which the management may have in its discretion conferred any such benefit upon its employees earlier.