DECISION ' The Pakistan Machine Tool Factory Limited, the respondents herein, had introduced a training scheme in their establishment at Landhi. Upon the successful completion of the training the trainees were eligible for regular appointment in the establishment. Originally the scheme of training was for period of 12 months. Under that scheme appellants Nasim Ahmed and Javed Aslam were offered training for Technical Assistants on the terms and conditions specified in the letters of the respondent establishment, dated 21st September, 1979 and 29th November, 1979. The training of the two appellants commenced with effect from the dates of the respective letters to him. Clause 11 of the terms and conditions of the training scheme provided that the respondent establishment had full right to extend the period of the training or to modify the training scheme. In accordance with this provision the appellants were offered and accepted a new extended scheme of training, vide the respondent establishment's letter, dated 5th June, 1978. Under this scheme, the training was to be for a period of two years. It is the case of the appellants that they bad successfully completed the period of two years training on 22nd September, 1979 and 22nd November, 1979 respectively and thereafter they had been assigned regular job of Technical Assistant in the respondent establishment, but they had neither been paid the wages of their post nor formal orders were issued regarding their appointment. Accordingly, on 18th August, 1980, they served separate grievance notices upon the respondent establishment. Subsequent to the service of the said grievance notices, the two appellants were appointed as regular Technical Assistants in the respondent establishment, with effect from the date that they report for duty, vide letters of the respondent establishment, dated 8th September, 1980. Pursuant to the said orders, both the appellants joined their duties on the same date and submitted a joining report. As according to the appellants their grievance that their appointments should be made retro-effective from the dates that their training had been completed was not redressed, they filed separate grievance petition before the learned Fourth Sind Labour Court on 14th September, 1980. The said grievance petitions have been dismissed by the learned Labour Court, vide its decision, given on 1st April, 1981. In coming to this decision the learned Labour Court has relied upon, firstly, the terms and conditions of training offered to the appellants, according to which no promise of appointment was held out to the trainees, even on successful completion of training, and secondly, the fact that both the appellants had accepted the appointment offered to them by the respondent establishment by their letters, dated 8th September, 1980. Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellants have filed separate appeals to this Tribunal. This order will dispose of both the appeals.
2. I have heard Mr. M. M. Jeelani, the learned representative of the appellants. His first contention was that under the original scheme of training, the period of training was 12 months only and the respondent establishment was not entitled to unilaterally introduce a new scheme for those who were undergoing the training or to extend the period of training to 24 months as has been unauthorisedly done by the respondent establishment. The short answer to this contention is that by term 11 of the terms and conditions of the original training scheme, under which the offer-of training was initially accepted by the appellants, the respondent establishment reserved full right to extend or otherwise to modify the training scheme. Moreover the appellants were offered the new training scheme, on a substantially enhanced stipend and they agreed to undergo training under the revised scheme without any objection or protest.
3. It was next contended by Mr. Jeelani that as appellants Nasim Ahmed and Javed Aslam had completed their training even under the revised scheme with effect from 21st September, 1979 and 2nd November, 1979 respectively, they were eligible for regular appointment of Technical Assistants from the above dates. In support of this contention he relied upon the admission of witness Tauqir Ahmed, Industrial Relation Officer in the respondent establishment, who has stated that the appointment letters issued to trainees are issued subsequently but they are effective retrospectively from the date of completion of training and they are paid their wages with effect from the date of their appointment. This admission of the witness is inconsistent with the terms and conditions under which the training was offered to the appellants. In both the schemes, it was made clear to the intending trainees that on successful completion of the training, the trainees may be appointed as Technical Assistants. In other words there was no guarantee given to the intending trainees that on successful completion of the training they would be appointed as regular Technical Assistants nor was any assurance held out as to when they could expect such an appointment. The appointment of trainee as regular Technical Assistants would obviously depend upon the number of vacancies of such posts available, existing or expected in the respondent establishment and hence it was the privilage of the management to appoint a particular trainee to a regular post, and if appointed, the date from which such appointment was to take effect.
4. It may also be pointed out that there was no tangible evidence, apart from the bare word of the appellants, that they had completed their training on 21st September, 1979 and 29th November, 1979 respectively. In the first place, according to the letters dated 16th June, 1980 of the respondent establishment, addressed to the two appellants, they had completed their training on the above date. This position appears to be correct and finds support from the fact that the revised training scheme of the two appellants commended on 7th June, 1978, when they opted for the said scheme, and as the training was for a period of 24 months, it is expected to have concluded at about the time when the letter, dated 16th June, 1980, was issued to the appellants.
5. Since the letters of appointment of the two appellants, dated 8th September, 1980, appear to be strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the training scheme, to which the appellants had voluntarily agreed, it cannot be said that they had any right guaranteed or conferred by any law, which they would enforce through a grievant petition. As already pointed out, it was for the management to decide with effect from what date the appointment of the appellants was to take effect. The management still retains that right and it is upto it to make the appointment of the two appellants retro-effective from the date they had completed their training periods, as appears to have been done in the case of other trainees, as admitted by the respondent's own witness, Tauqir Ahmed.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that I find no merit in the two appeals and would, accordingly, dismiss the same in limine.