' Mr. Makhoom Ahmad Qureshi's grievance petition, filed under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was on 21-8-1999 substantially allowed by the learned Labour Court No,3, Lahore, at Ferozewala; and the Authority (Deputy Administrator, Cooperative Model Town Society, Lahore) has preferred the present appeal.
2. Mr, Qureshi was originally employed as cooli, and then he earned promotions as Water Clerk/Water Ledger, Audit Clerk and finally as Meter Reader. The post at the lowest level, carried Grade-1 and the post of Meter Reader was in Grade-7. He operated as Meter Reader from 15-11- 1993 onwards continuously, and even on an assignment equivalent to the post of Line Superintendent for about a year, till he was ousted from service on 16-9-1998, in consequence of an enquiry held against him. He also states to have been performing the duties of a higher post (Water Ledger) in Grade-7 much earlier, from 2-2-1991 to 14-11-1993. Throughout, he claims to have been seeking confirmation as a Grade-7 official. The only post which carried Grade-1 was that of coli, which he held from 9-3-1986 to 1-2-1991. When he became matriculate, he was recommended for and he was actually also awarded two annual increments additionally.
3, The assertion of the Society high-ups, that his substantive post had throughout been the one in Grade-1, and he had been given the post of Meter Clerk only temporarily, is not convincing, and it is not understandable as to why he was not confirmed against the post of higher grade, over a long period exceeding seven years, from 2-2-1991 to 16-9-1998. But even if he had not been made permanent there, he could legitimately claim the dues of the different posts carrying Grade-7, as he had in actual practice been performing the duties of higher assignments. It is so well-known, as has also been pronounced, in a number of reported rulings, as for instance, a Federal Service Tribunal judgment cited as 1993 PLC (C.S.) 658, and a Supreme Court ruling quoted as PLD 1978 SC 61, that when a post involves assumption of responsibility or performance of duty of a higher degree or greater importance; the incumbent of the post cannot be denied the emoluments of the post. The plea involved to the effect by the establishment that the official had filed the petition and claimed wages of the higher assignment only as a mala fide move, object of which was to cause harassm ent and embarrassm ent to the Society, sounds ludicrous indeed. Throughout this long period the poor official had been drawing salary of Grade-1, and he was certainly entitled to the difference or the balance of the pay for the whole period 2-2-1991 onwards. The establishment must not grudge or decline payment of difference of the emoluments to the employee. Under all canons of common sense and principles of natural justice, he has eminent entitlement to get the same, and refusal on the part of the Authorities to part with the amount would constitute a wrongful act, commission of which cannot be permitted, on considerations of equity, justice and fairplay. I would endorse the observation made by the learned lower Court to the effect that even if the incumbent had not been regularly promoted to the higher post, or had not been confirmed in that capacity, he was entitled to draw the wages, all the same, particularly when it has been 'so held by the superior Courts.
4. I find myself indeed disinclined to subscribe to the view expressed by the learned Court below that the official had worked against the posts of Grade-7 w,e,f, 15-11-1993 and not w,e,f, 2-2-1991, and had no entitlement to get the wages of the post ever since 2-2-1991, by reason of his having laid claim to arrears of the emoluments in question w,e,f, 15-11-1993 and not for the prior period.
Grievance petition dated 15-1-1996, as also the official's deposition dated 3-6-1996, would leave no doubt about the fact that he had made a claim in that regard w,e,f, 2-2-1991, and the assertion had not effectively and successfully been refuted by the Society, in the course of his cross-examination as also in the reply dated 5-3-1996, submitted by the Society in the Court below, or on the strength of the evidence adduced. Office notes were recorded to the effect by the Secretary of the Society that the official possessed the requisite qualification and was entitled to hold the post of Meter Reader (BPS-7) w,e,f, 15-11-1993, when regularly he was given the post, as per Exhs. P-2, 3 and 4. The policy letter dated 20-5-1992, circulated amongst all the officials, and signed by the Deputy Administrator, the Secretary, the Account Officer, as also by an office-bearer of the Employees'
Union, was to the effect that revised scales would be admissible to the employees w,e,f, 1-8-1991, having been enforced on the said date (Exh. R-3). Even Incherge, Legal Branch. Mr. Muhammad Gulzar, Supervisor, appearing as RW-I, had furnished testimony to the same effect. As such, the arrears in question could not be declined by the Society on any valid premises or any legal basis to the official, who had been making miscellaneous applications from time to time, taking up the plea that he had been performing the duties of posts carrying Grade-7 w,e,f, 2-2-1991 and the officers had been recording favourble reports, which are available in the record of the Society. Mr. Gulzar, as already said, as RW-I, had frankly conceded to the claim of Mr. Qureshi having incessantly been serving as Meter Reader since 15-11-1993. It is also borne out by Exh. R-2. Throughout his service, Mr. Qureshi's performance and conduct have been up to the mark. The A.C.Rs, (annual confidential reports) depict outstanding/excellent performance/proficiency of the official; and it will then be highly unjust and inequitable, on the part of the Authorities, to refuse to the official the dues of the higher posts. He was imparted regular training as Meter Caliberator in the year 1993 in what was described to be an esteemed firm of "Eyed' Bhais" Lahore, and, for the purpose, Mr. Qureshi had even made payment of the prescribed fee, or the training charges.
5. Keeping in mind all these material developments, the Court is driven to the conclusion that by all means Mr. Qureshi was entitled to get emoluments or wages for the posts of BPS-7 w,e,f, 2-2-1991 to 16-9-1998, and the learned lower Court's decision dated 21-8-1994 is affirmed, and actually modified to some extent, so as to entitle the official to draw salary and accumulated arrears in excess w,e,f, 2-2-1991 onwards.
6. The official is in possession of documents indicating that employees junior to him even had been getting promotion to posts carrying BPS-7, w,e,f, 20-5-1996, and he had even been asked to work or officiate in place of one Fazal Ahmad, as Line Superintendent, in BPS-11. The Deputy Administrator had passed express orders on 2-9-1997 in favour of Makhdoom Ahmad Qureshi, Meter Reader, taking charge of the post of Incharge Marriant Feeder from Fazal Ahmad, Line Superintendent. This post carried Scale-11, and he was there till the end of his service. Here the learned counsel for the appellant has endeavoured to make the Court aware of the fact that Mr. Qureshi had himself not laid claim to the emoluments of the said post, nor had he been given regular charge of the post. It is to be. Pointed out that the gievance petition had been filed on 15-1-1996 and this development had taken place on a subsequent date i,e, on 2-9-1997, and in the petition such plea could not be taken up; but on the same principle and premises, on which the employee has been held entitled to emoluments of Scale-7, he cannot possibly be refused salary of the post of Grade-11, for the period from September, 1997 to mid-September, 1998. I would mark the order as 'A'. Detailed note is marked as "A/1". These documents have been presented in the course of arguments by Mr. Qureshi's counsel, and had not been tendered in evidence in the lower Court, as this could not possibly be done, the orders having been passed at the appellate stage. I have, however, taken due notice of these important unquestioned documents.
7. In the realm of Labour Laws, adoption of an unusual course like this, in my opinion, is permissible or admissible, and strict observance of the legal provisions or rigid enforcement of the Rules of Procedure and the Law of Evidence may not be insisted upon.
8. I do not find any force in the stand-point of the Society that Mr. Qureshi had continued to hold the post of Meter Reader on the strength of the stay order of the Labour Court and that otherwise he could not continuously have performed the duties of a post of Grade-7, the reason being that during preceding period too he had without interruption worked as Meter Reader, from November 1993 (as admitted), and even from a prior, date, from February, 1991 (as per record), and despite litigation he had risen to a higher post and been enabled to work as Line Superintendent or In charge Feeder, in eleventh scale, on the basis of regular orders having been rendered by the Deputy Administrator.
9. Mr. Qureshi is held entitled to get the difference of pay, over and above what he had actually been paid. This would have relevance to the salary of Sacle-7 w,e,f, 2-2-1991 till 1-9-1997 (six years and seven months) and salary of Scale-11 from 2-9-1997 to 16-9-1998 (full one year and half a month). The appeal stands dismissed, but I would leave the parties to bear) their costs of the litigation throughout.