1. MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--The appellant, Abdul Latif Khatri who joined Government service as Junior Clerk in the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as the Tribunal), was eventually promoted as Reader in 1975. His case is that in September, 1968 Reader of the Tribunal was at par with the Readers of the High Court as they were getting the same pay and grade (i,e, BS-11). However, the Readers of the High Court were awarded BS-16 w,e,f, 1st August, 1983 but no such up-gradation was made in his case. According to the appellant the duties/functions performed by Reader of the Tribunal are same as those performed by Reader of the High Court. His further submission is that like High Court the Tribunal is also headed by working or retired Judge of High Court. In view of the above considerations, he made representation to the Secretary, Labour Department for upgradation of his post from BS-11 to BS-16 but he rejected the same vide his order dated 4th June, 1987. He preferred departmental appeal against the said order on 2-7-1987. But as the departmental appeal remained undecided at the expiry of 90 days, the appellant came to this Tribunal in the present appeal filed on 2-11-1987.
2. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government counsel. We also went through necessary documents.
3. In the written statement filed on behalf or the official respondents, it is admitted that in November, 1968, the Reader of the Tribunal was placed in Grade-11, keeping in view the status of the Tribunal which was then set up. This reply is given to para. 3 of the Memo. of Appeal wherein the plea taken by appellant is that in the said year the Readers of High Court were already in the same scale of pay i,e, BS-11. It is not denied that the posts of Readers of High Court have been upgraded to BS-16 by S&GAD's Notification No, S.O.II (S&GAD)-COURTS-13983, dated 23rd August, 1983. The short question for our decision would be if on the basis of upgradation of the posts of High Court Readers the Reader of the Tribunal is also entitled to the similar raise in his scale of pay. In this connection we may refer to the Supreme Court authority relied upon by the appellant's learned counsel. It is reported as Province of Punjab and another v. Kamaluddin and 30 others PLD 1983 SC 126. It appears from the reported case that on introduction of the National Pay Scales in 1972, Readers as well as Judgment-writers of High Court were placed in NPS-11. Sometime later the judgment-writers were upgraded to NPS-14 and some of them who were assigned the duties of Private Secretaries were further raised to NPS-16. Consequently the Readers represented to Government that they should also be placed in the same scale and allowed National Pay Scale No,
16. They additionally pointed out that the Readers to the Members, Board of Revenue, who were performing less onerous duties were also placed in NPS-16. The said representation was strongly supported by the Chief Justice and Judges of Lahore High Court and ultimately also by the Services and General Administration Department of the Punjab. Somehow the Finance Department did not agree to the upgradation of the Reader's posts with the result that they took the matter before the Punjab Service Tribunal. Their appeal was accepted by the Service Tribunal and direction was issued that the posts of Readers in High Court be upgraded to NPS-16. The Government went in appeal to the Supreme Court against the said order of the Punjab Service Tribunal. After discussing the various aspects of the case the Supreme Court was pleased to rule as under: "In the present case, written objections were, indeed put in on behalf of the appellant herein but no objection, as to the competency of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal on the ground that the order challenged was a policy decision, which did not contravene any term and condition of service of the respondents, was taken herein. Nor was this objection raised during the hearing of the appeal before the Service Tribunal, which might have enabled the Tribunal to express its views on the question and it is only for the first time before this Court that an attempt is being made to agitate this question. However, in view of the nature of the proceedings before the Service Tribunal the normal rule followed by this Court that where a party fails to urge a point, which it could have urged before the forum concerned, it cannot be allowed to do so for the first time before this Court, will apply.
4. Even otherwise, the impugned decision of the Service Tribunal appears to be just, fair and equitable. It brings out in sharp relief the anomaly that whereas the Readers to Members of the Board of Revenue, who are performing less onerous duties and are serving in an institution which is lower in status than the High Court are placed in NPS-16, but for reasons best known only to the learned Finance Secretary it is considered that for their counterparts in the High Court NPS-12, will do.
5. We are therefore, of the opinion that this is not a fit case for interference. This petition must, accordingly fail and is dismissed hereby."
6. We are of the view that the case in our hand is on all fours with the above-reported case. As pointed out above it has been admitted in the written statement that when the Tribunal was set up, its Reader was equated with Readers of High Court, in recognition of the Tribunal's status. In other words the Tribunal was treated at par with High Court and consequently the Reader working in the Tribunal was given the same scale of pay as the Readers of High Court were already enjoying. Even otherwise we are satisfied that the status of the Tribunal is in no way inferior to that of High Court, as the Tribunal too is headed by working or retired Judge of the High Court. Therefore we see no justification in treating the Reader of the Tribunal differently from the Readers of High Court. Even the Government has no sound reason too deviate from the stand it had taken in 1968 when the Tribunal came into being. At that time the Tribunal was treated at par with High Court and its Reader was equated with Readers of High Court.
7. As in above reported case, the appellant's case too was strongly recommended by the Chairman of the Tribunal vide his letter dated 7th April, 1987. It is clear from the "Brief Facts" given in the written statement filed on behalf of the official respondents that as in the reported case, in this case also the Services and General Administration Department had taken up the question of upgradation of the appellant's post with the Finance Department twice but the said Department declined to accede to the proposal of the upgradation. The written statement shows that the only reason that obviously weighed with the Finance Department in rejecting the appellant's prayer for upgradation of this post was that the Reader of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is placed in BS-11. We regret our inability to toe this line of reasoning. If one or other province has denied the due benefit to its staff members, that should not serve as basis for the Finance Department or any other Department of the Government to take decision in any case. That Department should rather go into merits and demerits of the case and then come to its own conclusion. In this way the Department would set a sound precedent for other provinces to emulate rather than blindly follow any province without investigating if the practice followed there is at all founded on just and equitable considerations.
8. It seems while relying upon the data obtained from Punjab the Finance Department has conveniently ignored the information collected from other provinces in this regard. As disclosed in the written statement Reader of N.-W.F.P. Labour Appellate Tribunal is placed in BS-16. It is true that he is additionally holding other assignments also. But his other assignments do not carry as much importance as that enjoyed by Reader. Besides this, even Readers of Members Board of Revenue are in BS-16. Their status, in our opinion, cannot be better than the Reader of the Tribunal.
9. Furthermore we are not impressed by the argument that the duties of Readers of High Court are more onerous than those of the Reader of the Tribunal. We feel, that the higher scale of pay does not go with the quantum of work. It is given according to the status and the responsible position, the particular post enjoys.
10. For above reasons we allow the appeal with no order as to costs and direct that in order to place the post of Reader in the Tribunal at par with that of the Reader in High Court, it may be upgraded and placed in BS-16.