DECISION ' This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court dismissing the petition filed under section 25-A of the IRO. The facts forming the background of this case in a nutshell are as follows:-- ' The Petitioner was appointed as a supervisor with the respondent mill in 1982 and was promoted as a Cane Inspector in October 1985.
2. It appears that the petitioner was given 4 special increments (3 of Rs,80 each one of Rs,100) on 1- 11-1986 bringing his pay from Rs,1,160 to Rs,1,500 per month. It is alleged that he was given the aforesaid pay of Rs,1,500 upto December, 1987 but received a letter dated 2-2-1988 by which he was informed that he was granted an increase of Rs, 80 per month for the year 1987 on his basic salary of Rs,1,240 per month. The petitioner states that he had immediately protested against this unilateral and arbitrary curtailment of his pay and rate of increment, and was orally informed that the error would be rectified. Thereafter he had made several applications and representations coupled with verbal requests to the officers concerned but no heed was paid to the same. The applications are alleged to have been made on 5-6-1988, 28-61988, 4-3-1989 and 8-9-1991 which were not even replied. It was thereafter that he had sent the grievance notice to the respondent on 9-12-1991. As there was no redress of his grievance, hence he was constrained to file the petition before the Labour Court.
3. The petition came to be resisted on the ground that the petitioner was not a workman and it was barred by time. It was further averred that the refusal of special increment in pay did not fall within the category of any guaranteed right and therefore the petition was not maintainable. Otherwise too, the special increment under the rules of the respondent-mill could be granted by the Chairman with the recommendation of the General Manager. In this case the application had been presented to the Chairman straightaway. At any rate the order itself was subject to the sanction fromthe Head Office which was never given and even the aforesaid order of special increment was withdrawn by the very Chairman who had allowed the increment.
4. The petitioner was his own witness and Nazir Ahmad Panwar, Administrative Manager appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Labour Court found all the material issues against the petitioner and dismissed the petition.
5. It is to be seen that the appointment of the appellant took place as a Supervisor and later he was promoted as a Cane Inspector. He has stated that his duties were not supervisory in nature and he was all along performing manual and clerical duties which were as follows:-- "(a) To fill up the loan forms in respect of 300-400 growers of the sector who used to obtain loan facilities.
(b) To fill up agreement forms to be executed between the grower and the Mill Management.
(c) To prepare and issue delivery orders to growers for fertilizers/seeds and pesticides/insecticides.
(d) To pay regular visits to the cane fields in the sector and prepare yield estimation reports of all the growers of them sector numbering 300-400 growers.
(e) To bring cane samples from the fields to the factory for checking of sucrose contents etc. And to conduct other analysis.
(f) To perform physical field survey of 40% growers twice in a season which numbered to 200 growers."
7. In his cross-examination he admitted that there were 18 Cane Inspectors working in the mill and only 7 out of them were senior to him. On his own showing the growers came with prepared applications themselves. But he denied that the rest of the papers were prepared by the staff of Agriculture Manager. It was put to him that the duty of the Cane Inspector was only to report to the Agriculture Manager as to how much cultivation had been raised by the growers, but the same came to be denied. As against this Nazir Ahmed Panwar the witness of the respondent has detailed the duties of the Cane Inspector, in these words: "That a Cane Inspector is required to supervise the work of the Cane Supervisor and field workers and to survey the crop of the Abadgar of the wheat and keep the Agriculture Manager informed about the position." He has categorically stated that a Cane Inspector had nothing to do with the filing of the application for the grant of loan or the supply of fertilizers. It was the function of his Office; and any report or returns submitted by him, which according to him, in the cross- examination was to prepare survey reports of sugarcane twice in a season was only incidental to his main job.
8. To determine whether an employee is a workman or holding an office of supervisory nature the pith and the substance of duties only has to be seen and not duties of ancillary or incidental nature performed by him. There is no reason to look askance at the version supplied by the witness of the respondent and I agree with the learned Presiding Officer that the petition does not lie.
9. On the showing of the appellant himself the special increments were not being paid to him after 31-12-1987 and the letter dated 2-2-1988 had clearly mentioned that he was to get an increment of Rs,80 only on his earlier pay which was Rs,1,240. All that the appellant had done thereafter as he states, was to make representations and the three applications sent by him were also very much belated. The cause of action had arisen on the receipt of this letter dated 2-2-1988 and under section 25-A of the IRO, he had to be moving in the matter within the stipulated period. The first application which he professes to have made was on 8-6-1988. The appellant had to reckon with the bar of limitation and there is nothing to save him from its mischief.
10. It was further contended on behalf of the respondents, that the relief sought was in regard to the continuance of the special increase which does not constitute any guaranteed right. Mr. Talpur referred to an earlier decision of this Tribunal namely Thatta Sugar Mills v. Amanullah 1988 PLC page 773. It is on all fours with the dispute in issue.
11. Otherwise too, the special increase was not in accordance with the rules and the order granting the same was subject to the approval of the Head Office which was never forthcoming. What is more, the said order of increment was withdrawn by the Chairman himself.
12. I am therefore of the opinion that the petition was rightly dismissed by the Presiding Officer and I will affirm the order and dismiss the appeal.