By way of the instant appeal, filed under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, Muhammad Ishaque Malik has assailed the soundness of the decision dated 14-7-19,93, rendered by the Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore, presided over then by Haji Muhammad Akram Baitu. His grievance petition under section 25-A ibid was dismissed.
2. Muhammad Ishaque Malik joined Railway service on 20-2-1949, and has been retired on 23-5- 1984, as Foreman Telecommunication, and the last assignment is shown to be carrying BPS-15, although according to the appellant it was BPS-16, and he states to have actually also been serving against a post with BPS-17, Assistant Telecommunication Engineer, at Sukkar, from where he was transferred to Lahore, at the fag-end of his service, and he retired during his posting at Lahore on 23-5-1984. On retirement he was shown to be holding a post with BPS-15 and he was paid his dues accordingly.
3. He is obviously aggrieved; but the respondent does not at all accept his version and maintains that he was not entitled to a grade higher than BPS-15, on the eve of his retirement. Mr. Farzand Ali, Office Superintendent Administration Office of the Deputy General Manager Railways Headquarters, Lahore has made his statement as P.W. 1 and has deposed, from the record, that scale of the post of the petitioner in the year1979 (with, effect from 1-5-1979) had been upgraded from BPS-14 to 15 and the pay of the petitioner had accordingly been fixed. He has, however, hastened to add that the letter, dated 23-8-1979 did not apply to the case of the appellant and had relevance to the post of Sub-Engineer Grade-V. The appellant, according to the witness, had been promoted for holding an assignment in BPS-16 on 5-10-1980, and when he was posted at Sukkur, he was to hold a senior assignment in his own pay and scale and was only required to look after the work of the A.T.E. Telecommunication Project, Sukkur, where he served for about a year.
Another piece of testimony of this witness must, however, be taken to be directly relevant and absolutely significant. He says that a person asked to work against a higher post for 21 days can claim the officiating allowance, provided the case is cleared by the Departmental Promotion Committee. According to the witness, Muhammad Ishaque Malik appellant could not, however, claim even the allowance of officiation as he was only looking after the work of the higher post, and further was serving in the Project at Sukkur against a work-charged post, which assignment was excluded from the deliberations of the D.P.C. In the estimation of this Court, however, it is a stupid plea. How could it be urged that post at that level only a work-charged post. The same was very much in existence already, and even the appellant had worked there for a year. On no valid premises could the post be termed as a work-charged one. The witness has himself also deposed that a person serving on a post for a period of just three weeks would become entitled to claim the officiating allowance. The witness has qualified his statement by adding that it should be a regular post and clearance must have been given by the D.P.C.
4. It is be noted in this regard that exclusion of the post from the cases to be considered by the D.P.C. Was an arbitrary at of the 'Authorities' and had no legal justification.. Poor employee, nearing the age of superannuation, must have found himself helpless and could not manage inclusion of the item in the deliberations of the D.P.C. And in a wrongful manner he was made to suffer perpetually. By all means, in my considered view, the appellant could lay claim to the allowance of officiation, in BPS-17, for period of about one year, which he spent at Sukkur, practically performing the duties of the higher assignment.
5. In so far as upgradation of the post from Grade 14 to 15 was concerned, there is no dispute about it. Similarly, upgradation of the post to BPS-16 should not be taken to be a matter of doubt. Policy Letter Exh.P-2 lays down that the posts in question have beets upgraded to NSP-16 with effect from 1-5-1979. It did not make any discrimination between regular posts and work-charged posts, the wisdom being that posts having been in existence for years together continued to be treated as work-charged ones, with no valid justification. With effect from 1-5-1979, the appellant should have been treated as having been promoted to a post with BPS-15, under a general order, and further upgraded to BPS-16, in the year 1980, and subsequently he had been officiating against a still higher post with BPS-17 at Sukkur. The policy letters, Exh.P-2 and Exhs. R.2 and 3, issued in the year 1979, were not implemented and the appellant was deprived of what was due. Full and final settlement of dues, at the the of his retirement, was made, but in Grade-15 and not Grade-16. There is no denying the fact that the appellant will be treated to have finally retired from service in BPS-16 and not BPS-17, former being his substantive appointment. Although he could claim salary of a post with BPS-17 even, for the period he served at Sukkur, from where he was sent back to his parent Department, at Lahore, he could lay claim to arrears, pension, etc., with reference to a post with BPS-16. The Department has unduly insisted upon parting with the dues in favour of the appellant, considering his assignment to be one of Grade-15 and not Grade-16'. Leave arrangement; 'looking after a higher post in one's own pay and scale,' 'serving against a work-charged post', the terms, which are made use of by the Industrial establishments and the Government Departments to save their funds, and to inflict less upon the employees, who, even when they are nearing superannuation, or are retiring, are not dealt with magnanimously. This is neither equitable, no proper and fair, on the part of the employers.
6. Learned lower Court has also held the grievance petition to be the --barred, as the petitioner was retired on 30-5-1984, and he filed the grievance petition with a delay of about 4-1/2 years on 2-10-1988. In this behalf it is to be borne in mind that, as indicated by documents marked ' A' to ' D' , the appellant had been communicating his grievances to the 'Authorities', making requests for vindication of his cause, from August, 1984 to August 1988 in (the reverse order). When the 'Authorities', however, did not pay heed to his submissions and requests, he was constrained to have recourse to the Court of law for redress of his grievance. He should be taken to have rather adopted a more cautious course and a more proper channel, as he did not hasten to come to the Court. He had no alternative but to have access to the Labour Court, when the concerned quarters turned a deaf ear and did not respond to his representations. In the circumstances, it cannot be assumed that he had slept over the issue and had not agitated his cause before those who mattered. He served the statutory grievance notice Exh. P-4, on the General Manager, Pakistan Railways, Headquarters, Lahore, on 15-9-1988. I refuse to treat the grievance notice, followed by the grievance petition, filed on 2-10-1998, to be barred by the law of limitation.
7. I find that the averments of the appellant and his reasoning do not suffer from any distortion of factual position or misinterpretation of any legal proposition. The learned lower Court, in endorsing the view-point of the establishment, has, it appears, fallen in error and failed to appreciate the stand-point of the employee, in its true perspective. I would set aside the impugned judgment dated 14-7-1993, on acceptance of appeal, with costs. Dues payable to the appellant shall be calculated, and payment made by 28-2-1997 at the latest, keeping in view the observations made and the findings recorded in the course of this judgment, and no hesitation ought to be exhibited by the 'Authorities' in that regard.