Pakistan Case Law← Search
1992 PLC 689

ALI MUHAMMAD and another vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN

Citation1992 PLC 689
CourtLabour Appellate Tribunal
Case No.Appeals Nos, HYD-67 and 68 of 1990
Date1991-01-20
Judge(s)Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi
ResultAppeal allowed

DECISION ' These 2 appeals are directed against the orders of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad, dated 14-2-1990; whereby the grievance petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed. As the facts and points of law involved in both these appeals are similar and the respondent is also same, I will dispose them of by this single decision.

2. I have heard Mr. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Ishaq Abbasi, learned Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the cases.

3. The brief facts of the cases are that the appellants were admittedly employed as skilled workers by the respondents. Under revision of pay scales ordered by the Government, their pay in Scale BPS-7 was fixed on 1-1-1984 and they were given due increments on every 1st December of each year. Their increments became due on 1-12-1988, when they were not given increments as according to the respondents, their pay had been erroneously fixed due to clerical error and by order, dated 3-11-1988, the Assistant Engineer, Kotri, their pay was refixed and also the recovery of the excess amount allegedly paid to the appellants was ordered. The appellants after serving the grievance notices upon the respondents filed their grievance petition which were resisted by the respondents and were dismissed on the ground that there was no guaranteed and vested right, that the appellants could enforce under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.

4. It is not disputed that as result of the order, dated 3-11-1988, passed by the Assistant Engineer, Kotri, the appellants were not given the increments due on 1-12-1988 which amounted to withholding of increments. Withholding of increment is one of the punishments provided under Efficiency and Discipline Rules of the Railways Department. The Railways Department has framed separate Rules of Service governing the employees who are civil servants and those who are not civil servants within the meaning of Civil Servants Act. As such a provision of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, would not be applicable in the cases of the appellants. However, if any Law or Statutory Service Rules have been violated, the employees have right to seek relief under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 which provides for enforcement of any right guaranteed under any Law for the time being in force. It cannot be disputed that the increment cannot be withheld without having due course to the provision of relevant Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Even otherwise, it is a settled principle of law that any order which adversely affects the person or property of any person cannot be passed without first affording him an opportunity to be heard. This principle would be deemed to be ingrained in every Rule or law, unless the giving of such notice has been specifically excluded under relevant Law or Rules.

5. It is not disputed that before the order, dated 3-11-1988 was passed by the Assistant Engineer, Kotri, no notice of hearing was given to the appellants. The witness of the respondents, Mr. Muhammad Ilyas has admitted in the cross-examination that the appellants were not called to show cause why their pay should not be refixed. He further admitted that the bills are passed after audit of bills and the audit section had not raised objection over the wrong bills of the pay of the appellants. In view of above circumstances, the order of the Assistant Engineer, Kotri appears arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice and not tenable.

6. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court and orders passed by the Assistant Engineer, Kotri are set aside and the appellants are ordered to be paid due increments and other arrears. Pay, if any, within 3 months. However, the respondents would be at liberty to pass the order to correct the fixation of pay of the appellants, if there is any error in fixation of pay, after due notice to the appellants after observing the proper Rules and Regulations.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search