DECISION ' These seven appeals, six out of which are disposed of by a common order, call in question the order of the Labour Court No,IV at Karachi, dismissing the petitions under section 25-A of the I.R.O.
These arose in the following circumstances:- ' The petitioners were appointed as fitters sometimes in 1981 in Pay Group V which carries the scale Rs,375--25--700. There were representations about their scale and Anomaly Committee had been appointed. The grievance of the petitioners remained unredressed though some of their colleagues were promoted to Pay Group VI with retrospective effect. The petitioners had made further representations but the same came to be turned down. They had therefore sent grievance notices and later filed petitions before the Labour Court. The prayer was that they be granted Pay Scale No, VI from the day of their appointment.
2. The petitions came to be resisted on different grounds including the bar of limitation and maintainability under the Scheme of section 25-A, I.R.O. It reads as follows:- "A worker may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force to the notice of his employer in writing, either himself or through his shop steward or collective bargaining agent within three months of the day on which cause of such grievance arises."
3. The Labour Court for the reasons given by it dismissed the petitions.
4. All the petitioners had received offers of appointment giving in detail the terms and conditions of their service. According to these documents, their appointment was to be in Pay Group-V with a scale of the Rs,375--25--700. They were called upon to confirm in writing whether they agreed to these terms and conditions which read as follows:- "You are requested to confirm in writing that the terms and conditions set-forth above are acceptable to you. You should report for duty to the undersigned within 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter or earlier."
5. Every one of them had unconditionally accepted these terms and conditions. They cannot be heard to say now that they were short-changed and were entitled to appointment in Pay Scale VI, as candidates belonging to the Fitter Section could be placed initially in Grades IV, V and VI depending upon their qualifications.
6. Some anomalies had arisen and an Anamoly Committee had been constituted to examine the claims. After due deliberation, it had given its report and cases where entitlements were not commensurate to the qualifications had been put right. The memorandum is on the record and shows as to what would be the proper pay scale with different educational qualifications and past experience. The relevant po I ion reads as under:- "III. (1) Matric with 12/15 months Trg+ 2 years' Exp.)
(2)Matric with 6/9 months Trg. + 3 years'. Exp.)
(3)Matric + 3 years' Exp.)
(4)Middle with 12/15 months Trg.+ 3 years' Exp.) Pg. 5.
(5)Middle with 6/9 months Trg. + 4 years' Exp.)
(6)Middle + 5 years' Exp.)
(7)Less than Middle + 7 years' Exp.)
7. Now the cases in which the Pay Scale had been revised were because of their experience which had some how not been properly examined. There is no question of any mala fide or injustice discernible even remotely. They are working in Pay Scale VI now but on Time Scale Promotion. They were denied Pay Group VI initially because they were not qualified for the same.
8. There is no merit in the appeals. I will therefore affirm the orders and dismiss the appeals.