This judgment shall dispose of twenty-four appeals bearing No.1hr-110/93 Punjab and from No. Lhr- 135/93-Punjab to No. Lhr-157/93-Punjab which involve identical questions of facts and law.
2. The respondents who are twenty-four in numbers, are the employees of the Punjab Road Transport Corporation Limited. Out of them twenty are working as Auditors and four as Stock Verifiers. Originally they were drawing pay in NPS-12. According to the P.R.T.B. Recruitment and Staff Promotion Rules. 1976 (Exh.P.2), the post of Auditor is filled in by promotion from Accounts Assistants who were drawing pay in NPS-10. The post of Stock Verifier is filled in by direct recruitment. The Government of Punjab, Finance Department vide Notification No. FD-PC-16-22/72, dated 22nd of January, 1981 revised the pay scale of Assistants and granted BPS-14 to 20% of them. In pursuance of this notification, the Managing Director, Punjab Road Transport Board vide his order, dated 6th of March, 1984 (Exh.P.3) granted BPS-14 to 20% posts of Assistants of the Punjab Road Transport Board, Headquarters Office with immediate effect. However, no charge was made in the Pay Scales of the respondents. This created an anomaly. The respondents protested whereupon the Managing Director vide his order, dated 23rd of July, 1984 (Exh.P.4) upgraded the posts of Auditors and Stock Verifiers and granted them BPS-14 with effect from 8th of March, 1984. This satisfied the respondents.
3. Subsequently, the Provincial Government vide Notification No.FD--PC-2-1 X87, dated 27th of July, 1987 placed 33% of Assistants in BPS-15. The Punjab Road Transport Corporation adopted this notification also and vide order, dated 22nd of February, 1988 granted BPS-15 to 33% of Assistants with effect from 1st of July, 1987. This time again the same anomaly permeated as the scale of Auditors and Stock Verifiers who are admittedly higher than Assistants in the hierarchy of office management, was not revised. The respondents protested again. Their case was place in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 16th of January, 1989 but the Board took no decision and.
Opted to refer the matter to the Finance Department, Government of the Punjab for advice (Exh.
P.8). Since no decision was taken, the respondents, after service of grievance notices on 15th of May, 1989, separately filed twenty --four grievance petitions on 31st of July, 1989 praying for their placement in a pay scale higher than that of the Assistants with effect from 1st of July, 1987.
4. The appellant in the written statements filed in all the grievance petitions, asserted that the respondents had no vested right to be given a pay scale higher than that of the Assistants.
According to them, 33% of the Assistants had been placed in BPS-15 in pursuance of the notification of the Provincial Government wherein there was no mention about the revision of pay of the respondents. Preliminary objections were also taken to the effect that the respondents did not fall within the ambit of workman' as defined in the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and W.P.
Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, that the grievance petitions as well as the grievance notices were barred by time and that the grievance petitions suffered from the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. The Government of the Punjab and Director (Finance), Punjab Road Transport Corporation.
5. Since all the grievance petitions involved similar facts, they were consolidated and the proceedings were taken in the grievance petition re: Abdul Qamar v. The Managing Director, Punjab Road Transport Corporation.
6. On behalf of the respondents two witnesses were examined namely, Muhammad Zia, an Assistant of the Punjab Road Transport Corporation as P.W.1 and Abdul Qamar, one of the respondents as PW-2. In rebuttal, Muhammad Nawaz Bajwa, Personnel Officer Regulations, Punjab Road Transport Corporation entered the witness-box as R.W.1.
7. The learned Labour Court after appraising the evidence, found all the questions in controversy in favour of the respondents and accepting their grievance petitions, directed the appellant to give them BPS-15 with effect from 1st of July, 1987 so that their seniority was maintained and the channel of promotion was not upset.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed these twenty-four appeals.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has not in his arguments assailed the finding of the learned Labour Court that the respondents are workmen and the Labour Laws are applicable to them. He has, however, pressed into service two preliminary contentions firstly, that since the Director (Finance) was not impleaded in the grievance petitions, they suffered from the defect of non---joinder of necessary party and secondly, that the grievance notices and the grievance petitions were barred by time. Both these contentions are without substance. According to serial No. 20 of the Delegation of Powers of the Punjab Urban Transport Corporation Limited, the powers to sanction the creation of posts and to prescribe scales of pay in regard to them upto those of District Manager fully vest in the Managing Director. Director (Finance) does not possess any power in this behalf. Therefore, he is not a necessary party and failure to implead him is inconsequential.
10. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, the Punjab Road Transport Board or the Managing Director has not so far taken any final decision with regard to the grievance of the respondents in respect of revision of their pay scale. This matter came up for consideration in the meeting of the Board held on 16th of January, 1989 and it was decided to refer the same to the Finance Department, Government of the Punjab for advice (Exh. P.8). The requisite advice was not received. Learned counsel for the appellant stated at the Bar that this matter was again considered by the Board in its meeting held on 23rd of August. 1992 and it was again decided to refer the same to the Pay Commission Wing of the Finance Department for advice. It was further decided that the matter would be considered on receipt of the advice. It is, therefore, obvious that the grievance of the respondents has lingered on due to the inaction on the part of the employer.
On account of the recurrence of the cause of action, the grievance notices which admittedly were served on the appellant on 15th of May, 1989, as a deposed to by Muhammad Zia (PW-1), an Assistant of the Punjab Road Transport Corporation, were not hit by limitation.
11. Of course, after the service of the grievance notices on 15th of May, 1989 the grievance petitions should have been filed within two and a half months. According to section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, if the employer fails to communicate his decision within fifteen days of the grievance being brought to his notice, the worker, after the expiry of this period, shall take the matter to the Labour Court within a period of two months. The notices were served on 15th of May, 1989. They did not evoke any response. Fifteen days expired on 30th May, 1989. Therefore, the grievance petitions could be filed before 30th of July, 1989: But they were filed on 31st of July, 1989 after the expiry of limitation. However, this fact does not entail dismissal of the grievance petitions.
On a perusal of the record of the Labour Court, it transpires that on 31st of July, 1989 the Court was not functioning as the Presiding Officer had been transferred. On inquiry from the office, it has revealed that Mr. Salahuddin Zafar who was Presiding Officer of the Punjab Labour Court No. 1 Lahore had retired from service on 1st of May, 1989 and his successor namely, Mehr Muhammad Nawaz had taken over on 1st of February, 1990. It means that during this period, the Court was non- existent. Section 4 of the Limitation Act provides that where the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit or appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the Court reopens. In view of this provision of law, the grievance petitions which were due to be filed before 30th of July, 1989, could be filed even on 1st of February, 1990. Therefore, the objection of limitation raised by learned counsel for the appellant is overruled.
12. As regards the merits, the grievance of the respondents is not without substance. The posts of Auditors and Stock Verifiers held by them are admittedly placed at a higher pedestal than that of Assistants in the hierarchy of office establishment. When the Assistants were in BPS-10, the respondents were in BPS-12. When the Assistants were granted BPS-14 in pursuance of the Punjab Government Notification, the respondents also on their protest were given the same scale. When in pursuance of the subsequent notification of the Provincial Government, 33% Assistants were placed in BPS-15, no order was passed in respect of the pay scale of the respondents. It really looks inequitable that a higher post should be in a lower scale and the lower post in a higher scale.
Learned counsel for the appellant concedes in his arguments that this is an ante. According 'to him, the Board is not opposed to raising the pay scale of the respondents also but since the Corporation is dependent on the Provincial Government for necessary funds, it has referred the case of the respondents to the Provincial Government for advice. This fact does not justify withholding of higher scale from/the respondents for such a pretty long time. In the past as this anomaly had occurred and the Managing Director had removed the same by his order dated 23rd of July, 1984 (Exh. P.4) apparently without any reference to the Provincial Government, under serial No. 20 of the Delegation of Financial Powers, the Managing Director has full powers in this behalf and the exercise of these powers is not dependent on the advice of the Provincial Government, therefore, the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court directing the appellant to give the respondents BPS-15 with effect from 1st of July, 1987, the date on which 33% of Assistants were Placed in BPS-15, is not only just and proper but also lawful.
13. For the foregoing reasons, I affirm the impugned decision and dismiss these appeals.