' HAFIZ ABDUR REHMAN ANSARI (CHAIRMAN).--- All the above titled appeals are being decided by common judgment as common question of law and facts are involved in all these appeals.
2. The appellants-department has filed the instant appeals before this Court against judgment dated 23-12-2009 passed by Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No,9, Multan whereby Learned Presiding Officer accepted the grievance petitions of the respondents/ grievance petitioners and ordered for upgrading their pay scales according to the Notification dated 10-9-2007 issued by Government of Punjab, Finance Department with all back benefits according to the Notification.
3. The brief facts of the instant appeals are that respondents/ petitioner were initially appointed on Octori posts. After the abolishment of Octori System vides Notification dated 1-7-1999 they were declared surplus and were absorbed on the other equal posts in Municipal Corporation Multan/District Government Multan. It is alleged in.All the grievance petitions that vide Notification issued by the Government of Punjab, Finance Department dated 10-9-2007 the pay scales of Clerical staff have been upgraded according to which junior clerk Grade-5 has been upgraded to Grade-7, Senior Clerk Grade-7 has been upgraded to Grade-9 and Assistant/Head Clerk-11 has been upgraded to Grade-14. All the employees working in the City District Government Multan in other Towns have been upgraded according to the Notification but respondents/petitioners have not been upgraded by the appellant-department according to the Notification.
4. The appellant-department resisted all the grievance petitions and filed written statement and raised some preliminary objections. The Assistant Resident Director Audit/respondent No,4 in all grievance petitions vehemently opposed the contentions of the respondents/ petitioners that Octroi staff have to draw annual increments, move-over and get promotion etc. Within Octroi cadre. That all the grievance petitions are not maintainable.
5. Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan accepted all the grievance petitions of the respondent/petitioners and B directed the appellant-department to redress the grievance of the respondents/petitioners by up-grading their pay scales.
6. Learned counsel for appellant-department contends that learned Labour Court while passing impugned judgment did not adopt the procedure according to law provided in section 53 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008. Learned counsel for appellant further contended that learned trial while passing impugned judgment committed illegality and irregularity and not recorded the evidence; factual controversy cannot be resolved without recording the evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that it is mandatory provision of law that first respondents/petitioners served grievance notice upon thee appellant-department but respondents/ petitioners did not serve the grievance notice, so grievance petitions filed by respondents/petitioners are not maintainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that impugned judgment is perverse, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law, same is set-aside. Learned Presiding Officer did not apply his judicious mind to the facts of the case.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners vehemently supported the judgment passed by Learned Presiding Officer and submitted that grievance petitions were filed after serving grievance notice for implementation of Notification dated 16-9-2007 issued by Finance department Government of Punjab at it was implemented in other towns of the City District Government involved and no factual controversy is involved. Learned counsel further submitted that in all towns of City Multan i,e, Zakariya Town and Sher Shah etc. Benefits claimed by respondents have been allowed to the Octroi employees of those Towns who were absorbed in Towns on different posts.
Learned counsel further submitted that appellant-TMA Shah Rukn-e-Alam has upgraded scale of some respondents/ petitioners i,e, Shoukat Ali, Akmal Bhatti and Muhammad Sharif etc. While same are being refused to others as such discrimination is being made by the appellant-department which is not permissible. All citizens placed in a similar position deserve equal treatment.
8. I have heard the arguments of both the parties at length and perused the record minutely.
9. Government of Punjab vide Notification dated 10-9-2007 upgraded posts of the different category in the Department of local Government Employees of octroi staff clerks etc. On the abolishment of octroi system were absorbed in different administration in different Districts vide Notification issued by the Government of Punjab. These posts were upgraded and financial benefits were allowed. Such other employees of TMA, Sher Shah Town, Mosa Pak Town, Zakariya town and all other towns have been upgraded and availed the financial benefits. TMO, TMA present in court submitted that Shah Rukn-e-Alam Town is a supervisory town of all others Towns. TMO has raised objection why financial benefits were allowed to the employees who were absorbed in Towns after abolishing octroi system. When Court confronted the question whether appellant department i,e, Shah Rukn-eAlam Town as supervisory town as claimed has assailed the grant of such financial benefits in other towns before proper forum. TMO, TMA Shah Rukn-e-Alam replied in negative. As far as question of recording evidence only interpretation of Notification was involved in grievance petitions as respondents/petitioners had claimed financial benefits on the basis of said notification. No factual controversy was involved. TMO, TMA Shah Rukn-e-Alam Town admitted that financial benefits claimed by respondents/petitioners are being received by employees placed on similar positions in Sher Shah Town. The perusal of the judgment reveals that respondents/petitioners are being discriminated which is not permissible by Law. Article 25 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 discourage such discrimination. Reliance can be placed on PLD 2008 Lahore 184 titled as Ibrahim Flour and General Mills, District Sheikhupura through Chief Executive v. Government of Punjab through Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Food Department, Lahore and another. Further reliance can also be placed on 2007 PLC (C.S.) 157 titled as Hussain Badsha and another v. Akhtar Zaman and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as "Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 guarantees equal treatment before law and equal protection of law to all citizens similarly placed".
10. In view of the above discussion, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No,9, Multan rightly passed the judgment dated 23-12-2009 in which there is no flaw or infirmity which is hereby upheld. Appellant T.M.A, Shah Rukn-e-Alam will act upon the said judgment dated 23-12-2009 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Laobur Court No,9, Multan with immediate effect and will grant financial benefits of up-gradation to all the respondents/petitioners as are being received in other towns by similarly placed employees. The instant appeals have no legal force and same are dismissed as no order to costs.