DECISION ' These five Appeals Nos, 168/90, 107/90, 108/90, 198/90 and 201/90 are directed against the orders of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, IV at Karachi, passed on 10-7-1990, 21-3-1990, 21-3-1990, 22-8-1990 and 22-8-1990, respectively whereby grievance petitions of the appellants were dismissed by the learned Labour Court. As the respondents in the five appeals are same and the points of facts and law are also mostly similar, I will dispose of all the five appeals by this single decision.
2. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi, learned Advocate for all the appellants and Mr. S.M.
Yaqoob, learned counsel for the respondents and also have gone through the record and proceedings of all the cases.
3. Admittedly the appellants are workmen and were employed before the year 1978. At that time there was no specific unified grouping or gradation of various employees of the respondents. In the intervening period after the employment of the appellants, however, the existing grades were revised vide settlement, dated 5-1-1988 between the respondents and the C.B.A. Under which seven grades were found as under:-- New Pay Scales Existing Pay Scales I. 180--10--300 I. 150--15--215 II. 220--15--370 II. 180--20--300 ill. 250-15--490 III. 220--15--370 IV. 310-25-560 IV. 250--15--490 V. 375--25--700 V. 310--25--540 V. 480-30-810 VI. 350--25--700 VII. 500--40--940 VII. 450-30-810 ' All the appellants are in Grade IV which was in the scale of '250-15-490'. The pay scales were again revised vide settlements of 1982, 1984 and 1987. On 15-11-1983 `Trade Structure' was introduced vide letter No, 480--480--6/4 (R & C), dated 15-11-1983, in terms of clause 38 of the Settlement of 1982 and the work structure was formed.As under:--
4. The existing designation will be done away with and replaced by the following work structure/designations in case of Technical Cadres:--
(i) Supervisor Pay Group VII (Rs,620--50--1320)
(ii) Skilled Workers Pay Group VI, V and IV (Rs,560--40--1120) (Rs, 450--35--970) (Rs, 375--30--735)
(iii) Semi-skilled Workers Pay Group III (Rs,310--25--610)
(iv) Unskilled Workers Pay Group II and I (Rs,200--20--520) (Rs,230 (sic)--15--410)
' It is not disputed that the appellants have been getting Grades and Revision of Pay in accordance with these new grades fixation under trade structure and revision of Pay Scales and all the appellants were in Group VI when they filed grievance application. However, the grievance of the appellants is that they should be put in Grade/Group of VI from the date of their appointment and their pay should be revised and re-fixed accordingly and also they should be put in Grade VII after five years' service from the date of appointment as per the trade structure rules dated 15-11-1983 and they should also be paid the difference between pay so fixed and pay actually drawn by them.
Under the letter fixing 'trade structure' an 'Anomaly Committee' was also formed to consider the cases of those workmen in whose pay there was anomaly due to re-fixation of pay under the trade structures. The case of some of appellants was not sent to Anomaly Committee while cases of some of the appellant were rejected by the Anomaly Committee. It is contended by the respondents that some workers though appointed after them were drawing higher salaries due to refixation of pay under trade structure. It is also contended that on re-fixation pay under trade structure one of workmen namely Ithar Hussain, Nayab Ahmad and Zahid Hussain had been given arrears of pay also. It may also be pointed out that because of the numerous complaints/requests received in this behalf the respondents issued another Memorandum No, AAP-39- 1/1(R&P), dated 16-7-1989. Subject of this letter reads as under:- "Those persons appointed before 1-1-1978 in skilled workers Categories, will be fixed with one advance increment for each year prior to 1970 while fixation of pay w,e,f, 15-11-1983 because they will be allowed on putting in more than five years service.'
' In pursuance of this letter one of the appellants Syed Abdul Quddus (Appeal No, KAR-198 of 1990) actually got his pay re-fixed in Group VI w,e,f, his appointment viz. 8-6-1977 without arrears. He was also allowed T.S.P. (Time Scale Promotion) on 15-11-1983 and his pay was ordered to be re-fixed as per rules.
4-A. The contention of Mr. S.M. Yagoob is that at the time of appointment of the appellants, there was no trade structure and therefore their pay cannot be re-fixed in Group VI retrospectively.
However, he conceded that in view of the Memorandum issued by the respondent on 16-7-1990 the appellants will be entitled to have their pay re-fixed from the date of appointment before 1978 and also to get time scale promotion as per notification of Trade Structure, but he contended that they could get this concession under the Memorandum of 1990, only after they withdrew the appeals and further stated that those who have withdrawn the appeals, had not their pay fixed in accordance with this Memorandum of 1990. He further contended that neither under the Settlement nor under this Memorandum the appellants were entitled to get arrears of pay.
5. It may be pointed out that all the appellants are skilled workers. Appellants Muneer Hussain and Abdul Quddus are fitters, Muhammad Sharif is Press Operator, while Abdul Hameed is Welder and S.M. Mehdi is upholster. They could be treated as skilled workers and their pay would be fixed in Grade VI, V or IV. However as pointed out Abdul Quddus has been granted Group VI from date of his appointment viz. 8-6-1977 and he was also given T.S.P. On 15-11-1983 viz. From the date the 'trade structure' came into force. Abdul Quddus was appointed on 8-7-1977 whereas Muneer Hussain was appointed on 29-11-1976, Abdul Hameed was appointed on 17-5-1976 and Muhammad Sharif was appointed on 1-11-1976. Thus all the other four appellants have been appointed prior to appointment of Abdul Quddus. All of them were appointed in the same Pay Scale viz. 250--15--490.
As such when Abdul Qaddus had been put in Group VI from the date of his appointment in accordance with the policy laid down in the 'trade structure' scheme, there is no reason why other appellants, who are skilled workers and who joined service prior to Abdul Quddus, should not be put in Group VI from the date of their appointment. Mr. S.M. Yaqoob agrees, that this Memorandum of 16-7-1990 was issued after the appellants had filed grievance petitions, therefore this Tribunal cannot give them benefits under this Memorandum. I am afraid I cannot agree with Mr. S.M.
Yaqoob. By issuing this Memorandum, in fact the respondents have conceded to the demands of the appellants that their pay in Group VI be fixed from the date of their appointment. A party can concede to the claim of the other litigating party at any stage even at the stage of appeal. Though the respondents have not formally conceded before the Tribunal to the above demand of appellants but by issuing this Memorandum they have, in fact, conceded to this demand. When the Memorandum is brought to the notice of Tribunal and is admitted by counsel of the respondents this Tribunal can validly act upon this Memorandum and give the benefits to the appellants in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings as otherwise the appellants would have again to fight for their rights under this Memorandum and process of litigation would go on without an end. The contention of Mr. S.M. Yaqoob that the appellants can get the benefits under the said Memorandum only after they withdrew these appeals is also contradicted by the fact that one of the appellants namely Abdul Quddus was given benefits under this Memorandum during the pendency of the appeal.
6. Mr. S.M. Yaqoob has cited certain case-law on the question of limitation and not the present case do not come within the purview of section 25-A. So far as limitation is concerned I need not discuss the law, because non-payment of proper dues/salaries is continuous wrong and case of action could arise every month. Besides the aforesaid Memorandums of 1990 has given fresh cause of action as far as limitation is concerned. I have already pointed that no useful purpose would be served and it would amount to multiplicity of litigation if the accused are dismissed on the technical ground of limitation so that they may again seek remedy under the Memorandum of 1990. The 'Labour laws' have to be interpreted and applied liberally in favour of the workmen in a way which would advance interest of justice and the I welfare of workers.
7. With regard to question as to whether the appellant would work the Labour Court under section 25-A, it may be pointed out that the appellants are claiming their relief under the trade/grade structure promotion, Recruitment Rules of workers of Pakistan Steel. These Rule were framed by a Committee constituted in terms of clause 30 of the Settlement between the respondents and the C.B.A. In 1982 as such these Trade Structure Rules would form part of that Settlement. The Memorandum of 1990 has also been issued in order to remove the anomalies and disparities in fixation of pay under the Trade Structure Rules. The provision for removal of anomalies is contained in all the Settlements reached between the respondents and the C.BA. In 1982 and thereafter. The Rules framed for the purpose of removing such anomalies would, in fact, be rules framed in terms of the Settlement. The rights created under the Settlement can be enforced by a workman by having recourse to section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969. The cases relied upon by Mr. S.M. Yaqoob are apparently distinguishable and therefore need not be discussed.
8. The question that now requires consideration is whether the appellants are entitled to arrears of pay. The pay scale was revised under the `Trade Structure' scheme introduced on 15-11-1983.
Therefore, they cannot get the revised salary prior to that date as there is no agreement or right under the law to get the increased salary prior to introduction of Trade Structure Scheme in 1983.
Their pay is being fixed from the date of appointment under Memorandum of 1990 for the purpose of fixation of their pay and group under the Trade Structure Scheme on 15-11-1983, when they could be entitled to one time scale promotion, as the workers appointed before 1978, would be completing five years' service for the purpose of entitlement to the Time Scale Promotion (TSP) under the said Scheme. However, they could be entitled to the arrears of salary etc., from 15-11-1983 when their pay is fixed under that scheme and are given Time Scale Promotion in accordance with the Rules. This amount of difference of the salary would, in fact, be an amount the payment of which had been deducted from the wages of the appellants or payment had been delayed and would thus be recoverable under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, or through the Labour Court under section 25-A. Under section 15 the delayed or deducted wages for the last three years before the institution of proceedings are recoverable. The same principle would be applicable when the workman seeks relief of the delayed payment under section 25-A. The appellants, in my opinion, are entitled to payment of the arrears, for the last three years prior to the institution of the grievance petition by each of them, between wages and emoluments actually drawn by them and those that may be fixed in accordance with Trade Structure Rules read with the Instructions contained in the Memorandum of 1990 as ordered by this Tribunal.
9. In view of the above discussion, the appeals are disposed of in the following terms:-- "The pay of all the appellants be fixed in Group VI from the date of their respective appointments as has been done in the case of Abdul Quddus and their pay and Group be fixed under the Trade Structure Rules from 15-11-1983 on the same basis as has been done in the case of Abdul Quddus.
The appellants would be paid the difference of the salary and other benefits actually drawn by them and the pay and emoluments that may be fixed in accordance with aforesaid order of the Tribunal for three years prior to the institution of the grievance petitions. As this requires a lengthy process of accounting the respondents are given three months' time to implement the order of this Tribunal."