DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of the learned Sindh Labour Court No, 4, dated 10-10-1988, whereby grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case appear to be, that appellant is admittedly a workman employed by the respondents. In 1983 he was posted in the IMPE Department from where he was transferred to COBP Department. It appears that before his transfer certain list of promotion was prepared in the IMBC Department in which name of the appellant initially appeared but unfortunately, because of his transfer to other Department, his name was omitted from the list. Other 14 persons whose names were given in para. 13 of the grievance petition got limitation in pursuance of the said list. On 22-9- 1987, he served grievance notice upon the respondents, which was replied on 20-10-1987. However, he filed grievance petition on 11-10-1987. In the grievance petition the appellant made the following prayer:-- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to order removal of the anomaly and fixation of the applicant in Revised Pay Scale No, 5 (Rs, 645--40--1045) with effect from January, 1984 and also removal of anomalies in subsequent increases and promotions."
3. The respondent resisted the grievance petition on the ground that it was time-barred and that the persons against whom the appellant claims seniority have not been made party. The learned Labour Court accepted both the grounds of the respondents and dismissed the grievance application.
4. I have heard Mr. Ch. Rashid Ahmed, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
5. The facts of the case do not appear to be disputed. The prayer of the appellant in the grievance petition which has been reproduced above appears to be confused. The only specific prayer is that he should be given Pay Scale No, 5 from January, 1984. Admittedly appellant got Pay Scale No, 5 in 1983 vide Annexure 'F' produced by the appellant and Revised Pay in Scale No, 5 in January, 1984 vide Annexure `G' also produced by the appellant. Mr. Ch. Rashid Ahmed has submitted that by using the word 'anomaly' in the 'prayer' clause the appellant meant that his seniority should be re- fixed as it was disturbed because of 14 persons, mentioned in para. 13 of the grievance petition, who were promoted after the transfer of the appellant from the IMPC Department. The appellant has relied upon Rule 7 of the Pakistan Steel Mill Workmen Transfer Rules under which the transfer from one Department to another Department, unless it is on the request of the workman, would not affect his seniority. Be that as it may this grievance, if any, accrued to the appellant in 1983 whereas grievance notice was given in September, 1987. It is submitted by Mr. Ch. Rashid Ahmed that under settlement between the management and the CBA in January, 1987 the workman could apply for the removal of anomaly, if any, and appellant had made such application for removal of this anomaly on 13-5-1987. The respondents in written statement have denied that the appellant had made any such application. The appellant admittedly did not produce copy of the application or postal receipt to show that he sent such application. Apparently there is delay in serving the grievance notice. The burden was upon the appellant to prove, that the notice was sent within time.
He relied upon the application allegedly made in pursuance of the Settlement between management and the CBA. It was for him to prove that such application was made and in the absence of that proof, the learned Labour Court appears to be justified in holding that grievance notice was not given within three months as required under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969. I also find that no application under section 65-B of I.R.O. Read with section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved by the appellant.
6. As pointed out above by removal of anomaly the appellant prays for fixation of his seniority vis- a-vis 14 persons mentioned in para. 13 of the grievance petition. Admittedly these 14 persons have not been made party to the grievance petition and therefore the learned Labour Court has held, that the Court could not decide that the appellant was senior to these 14 persons, without leading them as it would be against the principles of natural justice Mr. Ch. Rashid Ahmed relied upon the wording of section 25-A, I.R.O. In support of his contention, that this section does not contemplate impleading any other person in the grievance application except the employer. The wordings of section 25-A no doubt show that the workman has to give grievance notice only to the employer and to make him party to the grievance petition. But if the workman seeks any relief, which adversely affects some other persons, the long standing practice as well as the principle of natural justice require that they should be made party. There is no bar contained in this section 25-A whereby other persons, whose rights might be affected by the decision of such application, cannot be made party. In the absence of such persons, it can be decided by the Labour Court or by the Tribunal, that the appellant was senior to the 14 persons mentioned in para.
13. Reliance is placed on 1980 PLC 453 and also on unreported decision of this Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 403 to 415, 420 and 421 of 1988 in the cases of Muhammad Yahya and 14 others v. Pakistan Steel, decided on 31-8-1989.
7. For the aforesaid reasons I find no merits in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.