DECISION These fifteen appeals are filed against the orders of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,II, dated 31-10-1988, whereby he dismissed all the grievance petitions filed by the appellants.
2. Originally 57 workmen had filed grievance petitions on the same cause of action but only 15 have filed these appeals. As the facts and point of law involved in all these appeals are same I will dispose them of by this single decision.
3. The appellants claimed to be workmen employed by the respondents as Supervisor/Operatives on various dates from 1977 to 1979 in the Group which is equivalent to present Group VII. The appellants being aggrieved by order of the respondents dated 13-12-1983, whereby their seniority was allegedly adversely affected, after service of grievance notice upon the respondents filed the grievance petitions. These petitions were originally dismissed by an order passed by the learned Labour Court on 27-5-1985, on the ground that no cause of action accrued to the appellants to seek relief under section 25-A of I.R.O. This order was passed without recording full evidence. In appeal this Tribunal vide orders dated 23-10-1986, set aside the order of the learned Presiding Officer and directed the decision of the grievance petitions after recording of evidence.
4. The respondents have resisted the petition on the ground that the appellants are not workmen and that no cause of action had accrued to them.
5. I have heard Mr. Ali Amjad, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The admitted facts appear to be, that the appellants were appointed by the respondents on various dates in between 1977 and 1979 in a Group which is equivalent to present Group VII. The impugned order of the respondents dated 13-12-1983, which allegedly gave cause of action to the appellants may be reproduced as under:-- PAKISTAN STEEL (Central Administration)
No, A&P-80-6/4(P&C)/ Dated Bin Qasim the 13 Dec., 1983.
Subject:- Trade/Grade Structure Reference para-15 (f) of our Circular No, A&P-80-6/4 (P&C) dated 15 Nov., 1983.
2. In pursuance of the decision contained in the above-quoted circular, Artisans (Trainee) who were inducted on F.Sc. basis as per list attached, are allowed the scale of Rs,480-30-810 and redesignated as Supervisors w,e,f, the date of their regularisation as shown in the list. Their scale of pay will be revised to Rs, 540-40-940, w,e,f, 5-7-1979, and to Rs,620-50-1320 w,e,f, 1-1-1982, as per peace agreements with the CBA. Arrears will be paid to them accordingly.
3. They will be merged in the new Pay Groups as per instructions contained in our above-quoted circular.
SD/- 13/12 (S. Ahsan Ahmed) for General Manager (A&P)"
The plain reading of this order would show, that it does not determine the seniority of either the appellants or of the persons whose list is attached with this order. The attached list shows that 110 employees were benefited by this order. These employees have not been made the parties to proceedings either before the Labour Court or before this Tribunal. The facts as have come in evidence and also in arguments of the parties admittedly are that these 110 persons were recruited in or about 1974 as Artisans in a Group which is equivalent to present Group V. All of them possess F.Sc. qualifications and were sent for training abroad for two years. The present appellants admittedly have Diploma in Associate Engineering and were recruited between 1977 to 1979 and were sent for training abroad for nine months. Admittedly the Karachi University treats qualifications of F.Sc. to be at par with Diploma of Associate Engineer. It appears that on representation or appeals of the 110 workmen employed in 1974, for up-grading their post in view of the fact that the persons possessing equivalent qualifications and lesser training abroad were posted in higher grade, the management finally accepted their demands and, as order would clearly show, they were redesignated as Supervisors with effect from the date of regularization as shown in the list and were given the revised scale of pay admissible to Supervisors from time to time. This Circular only shows, that the posts of the persons in attached list were redesignated as Supervisors and they were regularised from the date mentioned against their names viz. 1976 and 1977. This Circular from its plain reading would show that neither the seniority of the persons in the attached list was fixed nor seniority of the appellants was affected.
7. Mr. Ali Amjad has argued that as a consequence of this order their seniority has been adversely affected because all these 110 persons are regularised as Supervisors prior to date of the appointment of the appellants as Supervisors and therefore would rank senior to them and have been promoted accordingly.
8. Admittedly a settlement was reached between respondents/management and the CBA of the workers on 7-7-1982, which is produced as Annexure 'A' with affidavit-in-evidence of appellant Perwaiz, who with consent of the parties, was examined on behalf of all the appellants and was cross-examined by the respondents. Under clause 38 of this Agreement, it was agreed that the respondent would form a Committee, consisting of equal number of members nominated by the management and the CBA, to formulate the new policy with regard to promotion and the recruitment, which was to be accepted in toto by the management. In pursuance of the Report of this Committee the recommendations of the Committee were accepted by the management and were notified by Circular dated 15-11-1983, viz. Annexure 'B' with affidavit-in-evidence of Perwaiz Ahmed. Annexure 'IV' attached with this Policy Notification Annexure 'B' lays down promotion rules.
Para 7 of these Rules is material and is reproduced as under:-- "7. Seniority will count from the date of appointment in the Corporation 3r promotion to a particular grade. In the event of transfer from one wire to the other at the request of the individual, seniority in a particular cadre will count from the date of joining the cadre. In case of those appointed as Trainees Probationers seniority will be reckoned from the date of regularization.
Note.--In case of delay in holding DPC on any reason other than non-availability of posts, ante date of seniority without effect on pay and allowances will be allowed to compensate than vis-a- vis those promoted on normal dates."
9. Plain reading of this rule would show that the seniority of employees was to be counted from the date of appointment in Corporation or promotion to a particular grade. The employees in attached list, having been regularized in the Supervisory Grade prior to the appointment of the appellants, would in terms of this rule, rank senior to the appellants.
10. It is submitted by Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, learned counsel for the respondents, that this Circular cannot be considered as a settlement as defined in the I.R.O. as it is not signed by the parties and is not between the parties. Mr. Ali Amjad, however, contended, that this could be read in conjunction of clause 38 of the settlement and would form part of and continuity of that settlement. Be that as it may, even if this is considered as a settlement the appellants do not appear to have any grievance with regard to enforcement of this rule as they do not claim violation of this rule. The persons named in the attached list were regularised from the date earlier to the appointment of the, appellants and, therefore, they would rank senior to the appellants even for the purposes of promotion under this rule.
11. Mr. Ali Amjad, however, contended that under the note to this rule reproduced above, the ante dated seniority can be given only to those persons who are covered by this note. It may be pointed out that the persons in the attached list were not given any ante dated seniority but their regularization in the Supervisor's was granted from the date mentioned in the impugned Circular dated 13-12-1983. Under Section 25-A of I.R.O. a workman can only bring those rights for enforcement before the Labour Court, which are guaranteed by law, settlement or award. Under no law, settlement or award the appellants can have right to obstruct the re-structuring of trade grades by the respondents or from upgrading the posts of some workmen. As would appear from the order dated 13-12-1983, this up-gradation was done as a result of settlement arrived at between respondents and the C.B.A. Even in the petitions the appellants do not pray that the persons in the attached list be reverted back to Grade V but they only pray that the appellants be held senior to them. As already pointed out under above Rule 7 the seniority is to be counted from the date of appointment or promotion to a particular grade. Those persons have not been promoted but simply their appointment was redesignated as Supervisor retrospectively which does not affect adversely any right of the appellants.
12. Mr. S.M. Yaqoob has relied upon a decision of this Tribunal in the case of Pakistan Railways v.
Mohammed Umer 1980 PLC 653 wherein this Tribunal, relying on the principle of a udi alteram partem held, that where workman upon whom seniorty was claimed, was not impleaded petition was not maintainable. Even otherwise on the principle of natural justice and equity if the employment of earlier employed employee is redesignated, because subsequently the persons possessing similar qualification and lesser foreign training, were appointed in a higher grade, it cannot be considered to be illegal or breach of rights of later employee to call for any interference.
13. Mr. S.M. Yaqoob further contended, that the appellants arc not workmen but are supervisors and therefore they have no right to bring grievance before the Labour Court. Mr. All Amjad on the other hand contended that the appellants had been treated by the respondents as 'unionized' workmen and as such respondents were estopped from challenging their status as workmen. Mr. S.M.
Yaqoob has cited certain case law on the definition of workman but I do not find it necessary to discuss it in view of the fact that even otherwise, the appellants have no such rights guaranteed under the law, settlement or award, which they could enforce through these petitions. They do not have any right under any law, settlement or award to get order up-grading retrospectively the posts of other workmen reversed through Labour Court. Their rights under Rule 7 quoted above do not appear to be violated.
14. Even the persons against whom they want to enforce their alleged rights have not been impleaded as party. Furthermore, admittedly by this time, all the appellants have been promoted to higher grade, which is Officers Grade and for which there are separate rules of seniority and promotion, which are not within the jurisdiction of Labour Court.
15. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances I find no merits in these appeals which are dismissed.