1. ' MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---Three appeals are being disposed by this single judgment, because these involve identical questions of law and fact. These. Appeals are: Appeal No, 93 of 1994, Appeal No, 94 of 1994 and Appeal No, 95 of 1994, respectively filed by Messrs Muhammad Hayat Channa, Jethanand Rathi and Akhtar Azizullah Khan. All the three appellants are working as clerks of Court (hereinafter referred to as COCs) in different Labour Courts of the Province. Their prayer is that like the posts of COCs in Sessions Courts, their posts too be upgraded from the BPS-11 to BPS-15.
2. ' The appellant's case, as disclosed in their memos. Of appeal, briefly is that since the introduction of National Pay Scales in 1972, the posts of COCs both in Sessions Courts and Labour Courts were allowed BPS-11. Subsequently though the posts of COCs in Sessions Courts were upgraded from BPS-11 to BPS-15 vide Finance Department's Notification No,FD(CR-IV)-2-62/77 (COC), dated 8th August, 1991, yet the proposal of making similar upgradation of the posts of COCs in Labour Courts was turned down vide Finance Department's U.No, FD (SR-IV)-2-62/77, dated 24-8-1992. Aggrieved by the said U.O. Letter of the Finance Department the appellants preferred departmental appeals separately but they too were rejected by the S&GAD's U.O. Letter dated 2-5-1994. Therefore, the appellants approached this Tribunal in the aforementioned appeals.
3. ' We heard the arguments of Mr. M.L. Shahani for the appellants, and Mr. Zawar Hussain Shah, A.A.- G. On behalf of the official respondents. We also carefully went through the relevant record.
4. ' It would appear that the chief argument and perhaps the only argument on which the appellants' case hinges was that since the COCs working in Court of District and Sessions Judge and Labour Courts were assigned the same job, they could not be discriminated in respect of payment of emoluments. That is to say if the posts of COCs existing in. Sessions Courts were upgraded from BPS-11 to BPS-15, those in Labour Courts were automatically entitled to the same upgradation. In support of his argument, the appellants' learned counsel invited our reference not only to the advice of the Law Department of Government of Sindh but also to upgradation done in the Province of Punjab. The learned counsel also cited some precedent cases. On the other hand the learned A.A.-G. Vehemently countered the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants.
5. ' We have considered the arguments of both the sides. However, we are not impressed by the argument that the job assigned to COCs working in Courts of District and Sessions Judges and Labour Courts is precisely the same. The nature of the cases dealt with by the Courts of District and Sessions Judges and workload involved in such cases are not same as in case of Labour Courts. It is also not correct to say that the status of Labour Courts is at par with that of Courts of District and Sessions Judges. The later Courts enjoy both original as well as appellate jurisdiction but Labour Courts are invested with only original jurisdiction. Furthermore, as per section 35 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, both District and Sessions Judges (BPS-19) and Additional District and Sessions Judge (BPS-18 plus special pay) are eligible for appointment as Presiding Officer of Labour Court, whereas the Court of District and Sessions Judge is presided over only by District and Sessions Judge (BPS-19). It was not the appellant's claim that they belonged to the same cadre of COCs which also covered the COCs working the Courts of District and Sessions Judges nor was it their case that any joint seniority list was prepared and maintained in respect of all COCs working in Sessions Courts and Labour Courts. As such the question of discrimination would not arise if COCs attached to District and Sessions Judges were given higher pay scale (i,e, BPS-15) whereas the same was denied to COCs working in Labour Courts. Mere nomenclature of the posts would not be enough to entitle the COCs working in Labour Courts to claim higher pay scale allowed to COCs working in Sessions Courts.
6. ' Apart from above, we are in full agreement with the Law Department's view that upgrading of any post or posts was purely administrative rather a policy matter which had to be decided by the Administrative Department concerned in consultation with the Finance Department. No legal compulsion was involved in such decision. A to show cause against the or remove or dismiss him proposed action ask the Principal to leave from service."Consequently the denial of such concession would not entail legal violation.
7. ' It would also not help the appellants to rely upon the upgradation made by the Punjab Government in its own Province. Each province being autonomous was free to take a decision with regard to any matter including upgradation of any post or group of posts in the light of peculiar circumstances of that Province. The upgradation of posts is a costly affair. It depends upon the availability of funds. If due to want of resources, any Provincial Government could not afford the upgradation, it could not be forced to do so only because other Province or Provinces had done it.
8. ' Lastly the judgment dated 27th February, 1989 of this Tribunal in the Appeal No, 76 of 1987 and the Supreme Court authority cited in the said judgment would also not improve the fate of the appellants' case. The facts of the case covered by the said judgment were different and distinguishable from those of the present appeals.
9. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeals must fail. They are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. ' Before we part with the case we would like to make some observations. As stated in the earlier part of this judgment the job assigned to COCs of Labour Courts was not precisely the same as that of the COCs of the Session Courts. Nevertheless, a striking similarity between the duties and functions of one group of the COCs and those of the other group of COCs was quite visible. This Tribunal refused to intervene only because there was no legal violation. However, we feel that from administrative point of view the appellants' demand of upgradation of their posts was not altogether unreasonable. The Law Department had rightly recommended that the upgradation of the appellants' posts deserved serious consideration. Taking this opportunity we also endorse the said recommendations.