' The appeal captioned above merges from the decision, dated 27-6-1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,12 Lahore, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellants for piece rate profit.
2. The appellants claim to be Assistant Chargemen (now designated as Sub-Engineers) and relying upon notice, (copy Exh. P.2), demand piece rate profit. In the written statement the status of the appellants as Assistant Chargemen (designated as Sub-Engineers) is denied but in reply to a writ petition, (copy Exh. P.1), the same is admitted. The appellants are admittedly Assistant Chargemen (now designated as Sub-Engineers). According to Exh. P.2, Assistant Chargeman and Chargemen (designated as Sub-Engineers) grades-I and II in all the productive and non- productive units of Mughalpura shops were allowed consolidated piece rate profit at 33 1/3%. The learned lower Court says that as the appellants do not work in the workshop being draftsmen, they are not entitled to piece rate profit. Since vide Exh. P.2 both productive and non-productive units have been allowed piece rate profit, by no stretch of imagination the appellants can be said to be not entitled to benefits of the said notification. Apart from it the duties of the appellants are to make drawing for the things to be manufactured in the workshop. Unless drawing is made with correct specifications, no article can be manufactured. If the drawing is wrong, the article manufactured will be of no use, resulting in total loss. So, the working of the workshop rests upon the drawings done by the appellants. They are thus entitled to benefits of notification, (copy Exh.
P.2) and the learned lower Court erred in disallowing the claim.
3. No other point has been argued.
4. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the appellants is allowed.