DECISION ' These two similar appeals arise from the decisions of the Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the grievances of the respondents regarding fixation of their pay had been resolved.
2. Respondent Afzal Rana and six others filed their individual application under section 25-A of the I.R.O. For rectifying anomalies in respect of fixation of their pay in accordance with the Memorandum issued by the Steel Mills after the policy was approved by the Workers' Union. This Memorandum was passed on 16-7-1990 in consultation with the Collective Bargaining Agent of the Workers. The object was removal of disparity by providing a transparent formula for the fixation of pay on the basis of academic qualifications of the workers, the period of training and experience which they possessed at the time of the appointment and the pay group applicable to their cases.
3. The learned Labour Court found that all the applicants, excepting M. Afzal Rana, the respondent in this case, had been properly placed in their pay group according to the formula provided in the Memorandum but in the case of M. Afzal Rana, who was a Matriculate with five years experience the application was allowed since he was entitled to be placed in Pay Group VI from the date of his appointment according to the formula mentioned in the Memorandum. The learned Labour Court, therefore, dismissed all the other applications but granted the grievance petition of M. Afzal Rana and directed his pay to be fixed in Pay Group VI from the date of his appointment and also awarded him the consequential difference of pay for over past 10 years, he having been appointed on 9-8-1981.
4. The case of Muhammad Fazil Khan, respondent, is also similar. His grievance was that he may be placed in Pay Group VI from the date of his appointment namely 6-11-1976 with full back benefits as has been done in case of a worker by name Zahid Hussain and to allow him all the back benefits for the past 16 years. The learned Labour Court held in that case that the respondent was entitled to Pay Group VI from the date of his initial appointment and he was also entitled to difference of pay after taking into account the promotions earned by him from time to time.
5. It is the case of the Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation that the learned Labour Court, though fixing the pay of the respondent in accordance with the formula given in the Memorandum, dated 16-7- 1990, has accepted this formula in part (para. 8) but had disregarded the necessary condition attached to the Revision of Pay (para. 9) that no arrears will he paid', that the Memorandum was, therefore, partly accepted and partly rejected to the prejudice of the Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation because if the Revision of Pay is allowed retrospectively from the date of initial appointment twelve thousand other workers will claim the same benefits and this decision would open a pandoras box resulting in needless litigation.
6. It has also been argued that this Memorandum has to be regarded as a settlement between the parties and it was based on mutual agreement between the management and the Collective Bargaining Agent and was issued after the approval and in consultation with the C.BA. It had, therefore, to be acted upon in toto or to be rejected as a whole as otherwise the purpose of the scheme would be defeated.
7. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that a grievance under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Has to be brought to the notice of the management within three months but in this case the Revision of the Pay Scale is being claimed after more than ten years, though under section 25-A a grievance can be claimed in respect of "any right guaranteed or secured under any law or award or a settlement". The workers cannot claim the enhanced pay as of right nor can they claim promotion because some other workers on different considerations have been promoted to receive pay in a particular scale; that each case has to be decided on its own merits; that because one worker by name Zahid Hn sain has been allowed pay in certain scale cannot be a reason for revising the pay of all other workers to be fixed in the scale allowed to Zahid Hussain. If such claims are entertained there would be no limits to these disputes and it would not be possible for the management to cope with increasing claims of the workers.
8. It has, on the other hand, been argued by Mr. Shafiq Qureshi that the appellant Corporation has only objected to the grant of relevant pay scale according to the latest Memorandum with retrospective effect from the dates of initial appointment, that since it was a continuous wrong the cause of action would arise every month and he has quoted the previous decision by this Tribunal in the case of Abdul Hameed and 4 others v. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation 1992 PLC 710. But in this case a Memorandum cannot be accepted in part beneficial to the respondents and rejected in part disadvantageous to them. A viable formula has been provided for fixation of pay and it has to be acted upon in its entirety otherwise the basis on which the formula was prepared would collapse and it would lead to further anomalies. It cannot, therefore, be applied with retrospective effect but it is meant to regulate the pay scales prospectively for advantage of the workers.
9. Nor can the workers claim the same benefits as are being enjoyed by some other workers by comparison. Zahid Hussain may have been granted a particular scale for any meritorious work done by him or for any other good reason but that would not give right to all the workers to be placed on par with Zahid Hussain. In any case this is not a right guaranteed under section 25-A of the I.R.O.
10. In the result the decision of the Labour Courts are partly set aside and the appeals of M/s. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation are allowed.