' This appeal is directed against the order of the Labour Court No.VI at Hyderabad, dated 27-9-1982, whereby he ordered the fixation of pay of the respondent.
2. The respondent, Sirajuddin Khan, filed a grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, to the effect that under the Increment List issued by the Railways Administration in December, 1981, he was allowed pay from 1-12-1981 at the rate of Rs.760 per month instead of Rs.816 per month in the R.N.S.P. No.10. The grievance of the respondent, Sirajuddin Khan was that the said Increment List be declared as null and void and that the appellant be directed to correct the same and to allow him Rs.816 with effect from 1-12-1981, and to give consequential increments. The respondent, Sirajuddin Khan was a permanent employee of the appellants as Special Ticket Examiner. Under the Increment List issued in December, 1981, pay of the respondent was fixed at Rs.760 with effect from 1-4-1981 in the R.N.S.P.No.10.
3. The appellants in reply statement defended the fixation of pay of Sirajuddin Khan at Rs.760 from 1-12-1981. The grievance application, according to the appellants was not maintainable.
4. I have heard Mr. Iqbal Jafry, Advocate, for the appellant establishment and Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, Advocate, for the respondent.
5. In the affidavit filed by Sirajuddin Khan, he averred that on 1-12-1974, he reached maximum of N.S.P. No.8, namely Rs.425. With increment of Rs.20 accrued to him on 1-12-1975 at the time of switch-over from N.S.P. No.8 to N.S.P.No.9, his pay came to Rs.445 but since there was no stage of Rs.452 in the N.S.P.No.8, hence, his pay was to be fixed at Rs.460 N.S.P.No.9 instead of Rs.445. That his pay on 1-12-1976, should have been Rs.480 in the N.S.P.No.9. He added that his pay on 1-5-1977, should have been Rs.664 (after merging of Rs.10 plus 10% increment) in the N.S.P.No.10. The affidavit further adds that the pay of respondent on 1-12-1981, should have been Rs.816 instead of Rs.760. This is evidence led by the respondent.
6. The appellants relied upon the Railway Board's letter No.72-PC-1/55, dated 8-7-1975, but this was not accepted by the learned Labour Court and he depended on the High Court ruling, dated 19-2- 1979, by Single Judge, Mr. Justice Zahoorul Haque in C.P.No. S-86/78. The appellant establishment failed to rebut the assertion of the respondent's affidavit that his pay should have been fixed on Rs.816 on 1-12-1981.
7. The points raised before me by the appellants are (1) that the forum chosen by the respondent was Labour Court through grievance application and in fact he should have chosen the forum of Wages Act; and (2) that the grievance notice has not been given. These points are answered by the learned counsel Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi. In this respect he has referred PLD 1977 Leh.
528. The authority held that section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, relates to gratuity.
Amendment of section 15(1) confers additional jurisdiction in respect of payment of gratuity but not a right to such payment. It was held in the said authority that persons aggrieved can choose one of the two remedies available. The remedy of workman under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, could be entertained by a Labour Court. It is as under:- "The amendment made in section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act merely confers an additional jurisdiction in respect of payment of gratuity payable to a workman under any other law on the Authority created under the said Act. As has already been noticed, the Payment of Wages Act does not confer a right to payment of gratuity, because the said right is conferred by another enactment, namely, the Standing Orders Ordinance. Hence, it merely provides for the enforcement of a right conferred by some other law. The arguments would have some force if the right was created by the same statute which provided the remedy for its enforcement. In such a case no doubt the Tribunal created to determine the said right would have exclusive jurisdiction. However.
In this case only the remedy is provided for by the Payment of Wages Act, but the right is conferred in another statute. Hence, the person aggrieved appears to be the master of the situation and can pick and choose the forum which he considers more appropriate for the redress of his grievance.
This is not a case of exclusion of jurisdiction, but a case of two remedies being available to a person, leaving the person concerned to choose whichever remedy is more beneficial to him.
Therefore, the application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, filed by the workman could be entertained by Labour Court."
8. I am guided by the authority cited above and accordingly hold that grievance application under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, is maintainable.
9. Second point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant establishment is that the grievance notice was not given. To this, the learned Labour Court has stated that the notice is served by Postal receipt, which is on record.
10. On the whole, I find that the Railways have no case and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.