Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: A & B BEVERAGES SHAMA LABOUR UNION, KARACHI VS Respondent: SINDH LABOUR COURT JUDGMENT
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Ghous Muhammad Title:A & B BEVERAGES SHAMA LABOUR UNION, KARACHI vs SINDH LABOUR COURT
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 1998 PLC 490 Result: Appeal dismissed Judgment JUDGMENT ' This petition is directed against the order dated 24-11-1994 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labor Court No,III (respondent No,1) on the application under Standing Order 11-A of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968). ' Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No,2 being a private limited company has been engaged in the manufacture of beverages (soft drinks) under the trade name of 7-Up/Diet, 7-Up and Like Cola. The petitioner is a trade union of the workmen employed in the establishment of respondent No,2. The Directors and shareholders of the respondent No,2 were changed with effect from 26-1-1992 and its shares were purchased by the new management which is also running another beverage manufacturing organization under the name and style of "Pakistan Beverages Ltd." The petitioner alleged that after purchasing the shares of the respondent No,2 the new management with ulterior motives and to get rid of its workmen decided to close the business and also to wind-up the company therefore, resolution dated 18-2-1992 was passed for that purpose and thereafter application under Standing Orders Ordnance, 1968 was filed on 12-3-1992 before respondent No,1 seeking permission to close down the whole of its establishment and also to terminate the services of the workmen on the ground that the company had been suffering losses from 1988 onwards and that there was no chance of recovery in future. That application was contested by the petitioner/union who denied the claim of the respondent No,2 having suffered any losses.
---
## Page 2
' Parties led their evidence. The respondent submitted affidavit in evidence of their notified Factory Manager Mr. Muhammad Ismail Zara. He was cross-examined at length by Mr. Khalilur Rehman representative for the applicant. Mr. Sadik Ali Shah, the General Secretary of the Union filed his ' laying claim to selection grade but without success---Dues which one deserved to get during service being cause of recurring nature, petitioner could not urge that respondents had come to Labor Court too late in the day, and that grievance notices, followed by grievance petition were barred by law of limitation--Respondents having lost all hopes and having met failure in their departmental representations and verbal requests opted to have recourse to Labor Court for requisite relief---Respondents' grievance, therefore, could not be treated as having become time- barred---Labor Court had, thus, committed no error and had not acted in indulgent manner in allowing grievance petition---Order of Labour Court allowing respondents' selection grade was maintained in circumstances. [p. 500] A Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant. Ch. M. Khalid Farooq for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th November, 1997. JUDGMENT ' Learned Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, on 16-7-1997, accepted the grievance petition of the respondents, under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, filed against the Punjab Road Transport Corporation and the later has come up in appeal to this Court, challenging the soundness of the decision. 2. It is such a simple matter that one has not to labor a lot in arriving at a correct conclusion, particularly when a witness of the Corporation, appearing as R. W.1, in the lower Court, has testified largely in favor of the grievance-petitioners. By the Notification FD-PC-II/1-87, dated 27-7-1987 selection grade was allowed to 33% Assistants, and they were placed in BPS-15. This Notification (Exh.P-1), was adopted by the PRTO by an order dated 13-8-1987 (Exh. P-2). It is conceded by R.W.1 that Assistants of Technical Branch, Planning, Labor Welfare, Technical Trattting and Stores had also been held entitled to the selection grade. The respondents were ignored for the simple reason that the Stores Wing did not find mention in the notification. Validity of documents Exhs. P-1 to 7 has not been questioned. As per seniority list, Exh. P-5, Muhammad Arif was at Serial No,2 and Muhammad Iqbal at Serial No, 7 Sajjad Haider Shah, who was at Serial No, 1, has since retired, and Muhammad Arif now figures at Serial No,1, it has been so deposed by Muhammad Arif as P.W.1. Assistants, working in different sections, perform the same nature of duty, and they are also placed in the same scale. There is then no earthly reason why discriminatory treatment should have been meted out to these persons. They were actually entitled to get the same selection grade, which their counterparts in the other wings or sections of the set-up were held entitled to have, on the basis of the Notification Exh. P-1. 3. Throughout this period, the grievance-petitioners plead to have incessantly been laying claim to the selection grade, and they have been entreating the Authorities, to grant to them, whatever was due, but without success. It cannot be disputed that the dues which one deserves to get during service is a cause of recurring nature. As such, it cannot be urged by the Corporation that the respondents had come to the Labor Court too late in the day, and the grievance notices, followed by the grievance petition, were barred by the law of limitation. When they lost all hopes, and met failure in their departmental representations and verbal requests, they opted to have recourse to the Labor Court for the requisite relief. The cause, therefore, could not be treated as having become time-barred. If the Organization has been following the pay structure of the Punjab Government, for all of its employees, the respondents could not possibly be ignored, in the matter of grant of the selection grade. 4. As such, the learned Labor Court has committed no error and had not acted in an indulgent manner in allowing the grievance petition. Finding no justification for rescinding the impugned
---
## Page 3
judgment, and seeing no merit in the appeal preferred by the Corporation, I proceed to dismiss it, although with no orders as to costs.