DECISION This appeal by H.D.A. Arises from an order of the Sixth Sind Labour Court, Hyderabad whereby the grievance petition of one Muhammad Hanif was allowed and he was regularised from work- charged basis to regular basis in BPS-5 for seven years.
2. Mr. Masood Ali, Advocate for H.D.A. Has remained absent for the last six hearings on the ground of being busy before the High Court at Hyderabad. H.D.A. Is being represented by Mr. Ghulam Mujtaba Arabi, Superintendent.
3. The facts in brief are that the respondent was appointed as a Driver of light Suzuki vehicle by the H.D.A. On 15-8-1988 on work-charged basis. The Departmental Promotion Committee in their meeting on 11-1-1992 recommended that the respondent be brought on regular cadre in BPS-5 but this recommendation was not acted upon by H.D.A. Nor was it approved by the competent Authority. The respondent, therefore, filed his grievance petition before the Labour Court, Hyderabad for being brought on regular establishment and promoted to BPS-5 from BPS-1.
4. The learned Labour Court relying on a circular letter issued by the Finance Department, dated 10th March, 1994 allowed the claim of the respondent for promotion. This letter of the Finance Department was not addressed to the Labour Court but the heads of autonomous bodies were required to scrutinise such cases for getting the required post in the budget and referring their cases to a Committee of the Finance Department. The Labour Court cannot assume the jurisdiction of the Committee of the Finance Department.
5. In P.W.D. And other Departments, persons recruited on work---charged basis can be removed from service at any the by payment of wages in lieu of notice depending on the length of service of such work-charged employees. The terms and conditions of work-charged employees are governed by special rules in each department. The Rules of H.D.A. Have not been produced and it has not been stated whether any such rules have been framed but it is not the function of the Labour Court to promote such employees on work-charge basis or fix their scales of pay without there being any law or settlement to that effect.
6. The order of the Labour Court allowing the prayer of the respondent for promotion in BPS-5 upon regularisation appears to be in excess of jurisdiction of the Labour Court. In any case it is not an industrial dispute and the case does not fall within the ambit of section 25-A of the I.R.O.
7. The order of the Labour Court is, therefore, set aside as having been based on a petition not maintainable and as being in excess of jurisdiction.
8. This appeal by H.D.A. Is accordingly allowed. The amount of back benefits if any deposited by H.D.A. May be refunded after thirty days.