Find a Lawyer

1969Application No.57 of 1969, decided on 18th November

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (II of 1968),

S. 2(i)‑--"Workman" Electrical Supervisor Not a workman for purposes of Ordinance.

Gulab khan v. Abbasi Textile Mills Ltd., Rahimyarkhan 1961 P L C 210; Zahiruddin and 6 others v. Hardeo Glass Works Tikatuli, Dacca 1962 P L C 1017; Muhammad 4 kbar v. Abbasi Textile Mills Ltd., Rahimyarkhan 1963 P L C 5 and Employees' Union v. National & Grindlays Bank Ltd. Karachi 1966 P L C 412 ref.

Arshad Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner.

Ch. Altaf Hussain for Respondent.

Muhammad Irshad Peti tioner was employed as an Electrical Supervisor in the respondent concern known as Punjab Vegetable Ghee & General Mills Ltd., Lahore, on 2‑4‑1963 at a monthly salary of Rs. 290.00. On 31‑7‑1968, the petitioner along with other employees was laid off on the assurance that he would be recalled on duty later on. In April 1969, the petitioner received a new appointment letter from the respondent, who is the Managing Director of the said firm. In that letter it was mentioned that he was reduced to the status of a probationer, removable from service without any notice. The petitioner did not rejoin service, because. he ‑had already been confirmed as an Electrical Supervisor and, therefore, there was no question of his being employed as a Probationer removable from service without notice. The petitioner then brought this grievance to the notice of the respondent on 3‑5‑1969. He also served another notice on the respondent on 14‑5‑1969, calling upon him to pay his (petitioner's) dues. The respondent flatly refused to pay his dues vide his reply dated 30‑5‑1969.

Aggrieved by that order the petitioner has now preferred the present petition under Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, praying that the respondent be directed to pay the dues of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 725, It was also prayed that the respondent be burdened with costs.

This petition was resisted and one of the preliminary objections taken by the respondent was that since the petitioner was an Electrical Supervisor, he was holding an administrative post and as such was not a workman as defined in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.

Before dealing with the other preliminary objections as well as the petition on merits we, decided to hear arguments as to whether the petitioner is a workman as defined under section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.

Section 2(i) reads as follows :‑

" Workman' means any person employed in any industrial, or commercial establishment to do any skilled or un-killed, manual or clerical labour' for hire or reward."

The respondent in support of his contention cited decisions Industrial Courts in the cases, Gulab Khan v. Abbasi Textile ills Ltd., Rahimyarkhan (196 P L C 210), Zahiruddin and 6 others v. Hardeo Glass Works Tikatull, Dacca (1962 P L C 1017), Muhammad Akbar v. dbbasi Textile Mills Ltd., Rahimyarkhan (1963 P L C 555) and Employee's Union v. National and Grindlays Bank Ltd., Karachi (1966 P L C 412).

In Gulab Khan v. Abbasi Textile Mills Ltd., Rahimyarkhan, the petitioner, who was a Mistri, was declared not to be a workman under the statute, ' as his duties were essentially of a supervisory character.

In Zahiruddin and 6 others v. Hardeo Glass Works Tikatult, Dacca, the petitioner, who was a Supervisor, was declared not to be a workman under the statute.

In Muhammad Akbar v. Abbasi Textile Mills Ltd., Rahimyarkha7, the petitioner, who was a Mistri, was declared not to be a workman under the statute as his duties were of Supervisory nature.

In Employees' Union v. National and Grindlays Bank Limited, Karachi, the petitioner, who was a Supervisor, was declared not to be a workman under the statute. In the present case the petitioner on his own showing was an Electrical Supervisor and as such his duties were of Supervisory A nature, and therefore, he cannot be declared as a workman as defined under section 2(f) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968,

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.