This appeal arises from the decision dated 12th April 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer.
Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby he accepted the grievance petition of the respondent given against the wrong fixation of his emoluments.
2. The respondent was initially appointed as Junior Clerk in 1960 in the Revenue Department of the Government of Punjab. In 1973 he was working in D. C. Office. He was offered the post of Assistant in the appel--lant corporation vide letter of appointment dated 11th December, 1973. His pay was fixed as Rs. 250 in the scale of Rs. 250-18-340-20-440-20-540. The probationary period was fixed as three months with the condition that his services would be liable to termination on one month's notice from either side. The respondent was relieved from the D. C. Office vide order dated 27th December, 1973 retaining his lien in the said office. Later on the Government brought about a change in the policy as regards the deputa--tionists and issued an order on 23rd June, 1975 with respect to the respon--dent. The changed policy was 'that the administrative departments would prescribe the terms and-conditions of persons sent on deputation to Au--tonomous or Local bodies on the condition that the deputationists would receive basic pay of their parent departments plus its 20 per cent as deputa--tion allowance, with the condition that the leave salary and pension con--tribution would be paid by the Autonomous bodies but the fringe benefits would remain the same as they were allowed in the Government departments. It was, therefore, ordered that the respondent would get pay admissible to him in the parent office with 20 per cent deputation allowance and usual allowances and fringe benefits as admissible under the Government rules. The period of deputation was fixed as three years. The basic pay of the respondent was Rs. 220 on the date on which he was transferred to the appellant corporation and adding to it Rs. 44 as deputation allowance the pay was fixed at Rs. 264. The period of deputation ended on 26th Decem--ber, 1976. The respondent decided to remain with the appellant and did not like to return to his parent department. According to rule, the deputa--tionists, who wish to be absorbed in the Autonomous bodies to which they had been transferred on deputation, have to resign from the posts held with the Government and, thereafter, they are free to get their pay fixed in the borrowing organizations and according to the rules of the said organizations. The respondent, accordingly, resigned from his parent department and, there--after, he was regularised by the appellant corporation. His pay was fixed at Rs. 268 in N,P.S-10, which was Rs. 250 to 540: Before being absorbed he was getting Rs. 300 p:r mensem. The respondent brought an appeal which was rejected and intimation sent to him vide letter dated 31st October, 1977 Exh. P. 4.
Thereafter, he served a grievance notice on 19th December, 1977 and brought the grievance petition.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that vide Exh. DA the respondent accepted the new terms and conditions. He, therefore, acquiesced and was debarred from challenging the fixation of pay before the learned lower Court. He relies upon 1969 SCMR 96. This authority is not helpful, because in the case from which it arose the party had sub--jected himself to the jurisdiction of the forum and when order was passed against it, it challenged the order on account of want of jurisdiction. 1t was observed that since it did not object to the jurisdiction, he was debarred from saying after the case went against him that the authority had no jurisdiction. But no such point is involved in the present case. The respon--dent had come to the appellant for better post and better pay. His pay could not be fixed less than that what he was getting as a deputationist. Learned counsel for the appellant has made reference to Exh. D. 1 for arguing that the respondent was estopped from challenging the pay fixed by the appellant. Exh. D-1 is the report for duty and in it no pay or pay scale is mentioned. This is dated 5th January, 1977. The posting order is Exh. D. 3, which is dated 5th January. 1977. Copy of it is endorsed to the respondent also. It has not been shown that before the respondent made duty report Exh. D. 1, appoint--ment letter of the same date had been issued and brought to his notice. Usually posting order was to be passed before the respondent had given duty report, but since it has not been shown that before the respondent resigned from the parent department, the terms had been settled with him fixing his pay on Rs. 268 no question of estoppel arises. It appears that since already the respondent had resigned from the parent department. The appellant taking undue advantage of it fixed his pay lower than the one which he was getting as a deputationist. So no rule of estoppel applies. No doubt, he was regularised in 1977, but he was working since 27th December, 1973. So he should have been given the pay which was offered to him before the Government fixed the terms and conditions. As soon as the respondent ceased to remain the employee of the Government, the terms and conditions fixed by the Government came to an end and the terms and conditions under which the respondent was employed in 1973 revived He, therefore, could not be given the pay less than that which he was getting according to those terms. The learned lower Court, therefore, rightly ordered that the basic pay of the respondent be fixed at Rs. 304 in N.P.S. 10 with effect from 27t December, 1976 and to allow him rest and recreation allowance claimed by him.
The persons who are employed in the same category and cadre by the appellant during the deputation period of the respondent; could not be made senior to him and the seniority of the respondent could be fixed right from the date he came to the appellant i. e. 27th December, 1973. I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.