' ASAD MUNIR (MEMBER).--- The respondent, Mirza Kashif Baig, joined the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan Limited ("the Appellant Corporation") as an office Assistant in the year 1996 and is presently working as Computer Operator. Vide its Circular dated 29-4-1999, the Appellant Corporation granted qualification/technical allowance of Rs,3000 per month to all computer professionals holding graduation in computer science from a university approved by the University Grants Commission. Having obtained a Master's degree in Computer Science in August, 2004 from Mohi-ud-Din, Islamic University, Nerian Sharif, AJK, the respondent on 21-6-2005 applied for the grant of the qualification/technical allowance but his request was turned down by the appellant- Corporation on the ground that the said allowance was payable to officers only and was not intended for the staff membeRs, Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed a departmental appeal on 16-8-2005 but there was no response until 23-1-2007. Keeping in view the provisions of section 2-A read with section 4(1) of the Federal Service Tribunal Act, 1974, the respondent on 12-12-2005 filed a service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. However, vide order dated 12-7-2006 the appeal stood abated whereafter the respondent filed a Writ Petition No,8788 of 2006 which was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 4-9-2006 whereby the appellant Corporation was directed to decide the respondent's appeal/ departmental representation dated 16-8-2005 within a month. Vide its letter dated 23-1-2007, the appellant-Corporation rejected the appeal/departmental representation whereafter the respondent on 20-3-2007 filed a petition under section 47 of I.R.O., 2002.Through its judgment dated 28-9-2009, the Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore has accepted the grievance petition and has held that the respondent is entitled to receive the qualification/technical allowance of Rs,3000 per month with effect from August, 2004.
The aforesaid judgment has been challenged through this appeal.
2.Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction as the requisite grievance notice was not served and that the departmental appeal dated 16-8-2005 filed by the respondent cannot be treated as a grievance notice. In support, the learned counsel has referred to the case of Khushal Khan v. MCB Ltd. And others (2002 SCM R 943). Learned counsel has also contended that the grievance petition is time-barred as it was, not filed within 90 days of the date on which the service appeal abated before the FST. Learned counsel has further contended that the learned Labour Court has misconstrued the circular dated 29-4-1999 as it provides qualification/ technical allowance to officers only and being a Senior Assistant, the respondent does not fall in the category of officeRs, Lastly, it was contended that the respondent cannot claim the allowance with effect from August, 2004 as his MCS result was notified on 3rd May, 2005. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and has argued that computer professionals, officers as well as staff members, are entitled to the allowance in terms of the circular. It is also contended by the learned counsel that through an agreement between the CBA and the Appellant Corporation, the computer,.Profesionals are receiving allowance with effect from January, 2009: 3.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the available record.
The main question that needs to be addressed is whether the Circular dated 29-1-1999 allows qualification/ technical allowance to officers only and excludes staff membeRs, The relevant part of the Circular is reproduced below:--- "Further to Officer Order No,P&GS/PO/187/91 dated 23-12-1991, the Management is pleased to revise/enhance the qualification/technical allowance for Computer Professionals and Qualified Accountants with effect from 1-1-1999 in a manner as is given hereunder:--- Computer Professionals recruited during 1995 or in later years possessing due professional qualification shall also be eligible for payment of qualification/technical allowance and be treated as par with the existing professionals for the allowance under this policy. All qualified professionals of the Computer Division shall be allowed the following qualification/technical allowance.
(1) Officers possessing computer related qualification:--- Graduation in Computer Science from Universities approved by University Grants Commission--- Rs,2,000 p.m. Post-Graduation in Computer Science from Universities approved by University Grants Commission ....Rs,3000 p.m. Ph.D. In Computer Science from Universities approved by University Grant Commission Rs,5000 p.m. The qualification/technical allowance shall be allowed to all Computer Professionals possessing the qualification mentioned in Para-1(a) to (c) irrespective of his place of posting. However, the Officers/Staff posted other than Computer Division would be required to work in Computer Division as and when the Management so desires and technical/qualification allowance of those Officers/Staff who refuse to be transferred to Computer Division will be withdrawn."
4. From. A perusal of the aft ore said Circular; it is evident that the qualification/technical allowance is admissible to an employee as long as he is a Computer Professional possessing the qualifications specified in the Circular. As has been stated repeatedly in the Circular, the qualified Computer Professionals are eligible to receive the allowance. The word "Officers" appearing in the heading of Para (1) of the Circular cannot be construed restrictively considering that it is expressly stated in the para that the allowance shall be allowed to all Computer Professionals irrespective of their place of posting and shall be withdrawn if the Officers/Staff refuse'to work in the Computer Division. There is no basis to limit the application of the Circular to officers only as whoever holds the appropriate qualification in Computer Science is a "Computer Professional" regardless of whether he is an officer or is a member of the staff. Thus, there is no doubt that the benefit of the allowance is available to officers and staff. Having a Masters degree in Computer Science, the respondent is, undoubtedly, a Computer Professional who is entitled to the benefit of the technical allowance as has been rightly held by the learned Labour Court.
5. As regards the validity of the grievance notice, it is to be noted that the respondent filed an appeal/departmental representation dated 16-8-2005 for grant of qualification/technical allowance. Through the said appeal/departmental representation, the respondent brought his grievance to the notice of the appellant-Corporation wherefor the said appeal/departmental representation can be safely treated as a grievance notice. All that section 46(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, requires is that the aggrieved workman must communicate his grievance to the employer in writing and it does not matter whether such communication is in the form of an appeal, representation or review for the obvious reason that no such form is prescribed by section 33(1) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010. In this regard, I draw support from Abdul Qadir Khan and 12 others v. Managing Director, Millat Tractors Private Limited and another (2005 PLC 438), Syed Nasir Abbas Naqvi v. Punjab Labour Appellate Ttribunal through Chairman and 4 others (sic) and Shamim Ahmed Khan v. Assistant Engineer, Phones, Digital (Internal) Defence Exchange (PTCL), Lahore (2009 PLC 44). At the same time, the departmental appeal cannot be rejected as a grievance notice for being addressed to the appellate authority instead of the appointing authority. In the first place, the case of Khushal Khan v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd.
And others', supra, cannot be applied as there is nothing on record to suggest as to who the appellate authority is or who the appointing authority is. I am fortified by the observations made in Syed Nasir Abbas Naqvi v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal through Chairman and 4 others, supra, where in identical circumstances, a similar view was taken.
6. No decision was taken by the appellant-Corporation on the respondent's appeal/departmental representation dated L6-8-2005 with the result that the respondent had to approach the Hon'ble Lahore High ourt who vide order dated 4-9-2006 directed the appellant-Corporation to decide the respondent's representation/departmental appeal within a month. The grievance petition was filed within time on 16-3-2007 as it is only on 23-1-2007 that the Appellant Corporation vide its letter dated 23-1-2007 rejected the respondent's representation/ departmental appeal.
7. Respondent completed his Masters in Computer Science in August, 2004 as is evident from the transcript issued by the University on 3rd May, 2005. As such, the respondent had completed MCS in August, 2004 and had become eligible to receive qualification/technical allowance with effect from August, 2004. The late communication of the MCS result in May, 2005 cannot mean that the respondent had not completed the MCS earlier in August, 2004.
8. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.