ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J.----This Constitutional Petition is directed against the judgment dated 03.08.2017, passed by the District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer/Labour Court-I, Balochistan Quetta (trial Court ) whereby the application filed by the respondents Nos.1 to 3: under section 41 of Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010 was allowed and appeal filed thereon by the petitioner before the Labour Appellate Tribunal Balochistan, Quetta ( Appellate T ribunal ) was dismissed vide judgment dated 29th September , 2017.
2. Brief facts leading to file the instant petition are that the applicants/respondents entered into services of WAPDA as LKBC on 14.12.1981, 01.07.1980 and 06.07.1981 respectively; thereafter they were promoted to the post of UDC on 13.01.1986, 14.02.1985 and 09.09.1987 respectively . The applicants/respondents served the department with utmost satisfaction and no complai nt has come on record against them, as such, vide office order dated 02.11.2005, the applicants were promoted to the next grade i.e. Commercial Superintendent (BPS-15) and till now the applicants/respondents are serving on the same grade. Thereafter , vide office order dated 13.03.2008 the PEPCO was pleased to upgrade the posts of Commercial Assistant from BPS-1 1 to BPS-14 w.e.f. 01.07.2007 and vide office order dated 31.12.2013 respondents/petitioners were pleased to further upgrade the posts of Commercial Assistant from BPS-14 to BS-16. The PEPCO vide its Office Memorandum dated 17.10.201 1 was pleased to grant one step up-gradation to the officials in BPS-15 from original scale of the post, which office Memorandum was amended vide office memorandum dated 22.04.2013. In view of said memorandum the applicants are entitled for two steps up-gradation in BPS-17, but without any reason the applicants have not been granted the same, Further the Commercial Superintendent who are junior by the designation from the applicants are allowed to draw their pay and perks in BPS-16, while applicants/respondents senior from the Commercial Assistant are granted BPS-15 which is not permissible under the law. In such circumstances the applicants/respondents preferred grievance notice to the petitioners/but not responded. Hence filling of application before the trial court.
3. The petitioners contested the application by filing written statement and raised certain legal objections. The learned trial court after-hearing the parties allowed the application vide judgment dated 03.08.2017.
4. The petitioners being aggrieved of the judgment, passed by the trial court preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The learned Appellate Tribunal after hearing the parties, up-he ld the judgment passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 29.10.2017, hence this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the both the judgments, passed by the courts below are contrary to law and fact and based on surmises and conjectures; that both the courts below have not appreciated the documents produced by the petitioners in true perspective; that the relief granted to respondents Nos.1 to 3 by the courts below are against the law. He lastly prayed by setting aside the judgments passed by the court below by dismissing the grievance application.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 3 strongly opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the courts below have rightly granted the relief by considering the documents available on record in its true perspective. He urged for dismissal of the petition.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The perusal of record reveals that the respondents were appointed as LKBC on 14.12.1981, 01.07.1980 and 06.07.1981 respectively , thereafter they were promoted to the post of UDC on 13-1-1986, 14.02.1985 and 09.09.1987 respectively . In the year 1995 the post of UDC was converted into Commercial Assistant BPS-1 1, and thereafter the respondents were promoted as Commercial Superintendent BPS-15 vide office order No.C10/QESCO. HR&AD/DM (HRM)/56540-53, dated 02.11.2005. The respondents are working as Commercial Superintendent since their promotion from the post of Commercial Assistant, and till now neither any sort of complaint nor any disciplinary action was taken against them and the petitioners were satisfied from their hard working. The AM (Admin) PEPCO, with the. approval of MD PEPCO issued an official Memorandum No.GM (HR)/HRD/A-693/L/1356-90, dated April, 22nd, 2013, the theme of the same is reproduced herein below: Approval of Managing Director PEPCO is hereby conveyed for grant of two-step Time Scale Up gradation (TSU) to the following categories with immediate effect in order to maintain uniformity in the organization with no change in criteria contained therein. a. Employees in BPS-1.5. b. Stenographer Grade-I, c. The deficit of one step up-gradation would be admissible where up-gradation has been allowed earlier by one step. In all it will be two steps on current substantive scale in case of BPS-1 to 15 and in case of employees in substantively in BPS-16 it would be one step up-gradation. Stenographers Grade-II are already entitled for two steps Up-gradation from BPS-12 to BPS-14.
8. In view of the above notification, the respondents claimed their two step time scale up-gradation. The learned trial court framed issues, but the petitioners did not produce any single documentary evidence before the trial court except recording statement of representative namely Khushnood Ahmed. The petitioner has failed to discard the referred memorandum/notification. The petitioners relied upon different official memorandum in written statement but failed to substantiate the same. Mere mentioning the documents in pleadings are not enough to be accepted rather the same are required to be proved according to the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order , 1984 . The official memorandum dated 22.4.2013 as relied upon by respondents clearly manifest that the employee working in BPS- 15 are entitled for two steps up-gradation. Since the respondents are fulfilling the requisite qualification, therefore they were entitled for two step time scale up-gradation.
In view of above, the petitioners have failed to point out any illegality and irregularity in the concurrent judgments passed by the courts below warranting interference by this court. Therefore, petition being bereft of any merit is dismissed accordingly .