Find a Lawyer

Petition No. 343 of 1970, decided on 5th August 1971.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-----

-----S. 2(c)(W) and S. O. 18 Person employed as supervisor with duties of supervisory nature and recording remarks on conduct of persons under his supervision‑An employer and not a "workman"‑Not entitled to seek redress under Provisions of S. O. 18.

This is an application under Standing Order No. 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance of 1968 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) by Mr. A. G. Abid Naqashbandi against the order of termination of his services dated 12‑8‑1970. In the petition, he alleged that he has been victimised as he was the General Secretary of the Workers' Union. In this very application, he also prayed for re‑instatement of some other members of the Trade Union.

The petition was resisted on behalf of the respondent. Among other objections, an objection was also raised to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petitioner is not a workman within the definition of the Ordinance. As such, he 9s not entitled to any relief under Standing Order No. 18.

The petitioner examined himself as P. W. 1, Mian Abdul Ghaffar as P. W. 2 and Mian Ashiq Ali, P. W. 3 in support of his case. He also wanted to lead some other evidence. He was allowed to do so under an earlier order. By further evidence, he wanted to prove that he used to work with his own hands and did manual labour and, as such, fell within the definition of a workman.

Today when the case came up for recording the further evidence of the petitioner, I happened to go through the statement of the petitioner dated 27‑3‑1971 and also through the Exhs. R. 1 to R. 12 which were brought out in evidence in the cross‑examina tion of the petitioner. In his statement, the petitioner admitted in cross‑examination that he applied for the post of a Supervisor to get employment with the respondent. He also admitted documents Exhs. R. 1 to R. 12. Exh. R. 1 is the application of the petitioner for the job. Exh. R. 2 is the appointment letter. Exhs. R. 3 to R. 9 are the different applications made by the petitioner for leave. Exh. R. 10 is the order of termination of the services of the petitioner. Exh. R. 11 is the chart of the Supply Department prepared by the petitioner himself showing that he worked as a Supervisor and who else worked under him. Exh. R. 12 is the list of the workers who worked under him which contains his report about the conduct of the different workers.

A perusal of all these documents shows that the petitioner has been described as a Supervisor and had actually supervisory duties till the time his services were terminated. Mian Abdul Ghaffar P. W. 2 has admitted that the petitioner worked as a Supervisor and was not required to do any clerical or manual work and that his duty was only of supervisory nature. In view of this evidence on record which has been produced and admitted by the petitioner to be correct, there is no occasion for permitting him now to lead evidence to show that tie was a manual labourer falling within the definition of a workman. This type of evidence which he now wants to lead is obviously under some expert advice to rebut his own evidence led earlier in the case. From the documentary evidence admitted to be correct by the petitioner as well as from the oral evidence led by him, it stands fully established that the duties of the petitioner were of a supervisory nature and his claim that he did manual labour cannot be accepted:

A perusal of the definition of an employer given in section 2(c)(iii) of the Ordinance shows that the petitioner was responsible to the owner for the supervision and control of the establishment under him. Exh. R. 12 wherein the petitioner recorded remarks on the work and conduct of the other persons; under his supervision, proves beyond doubt when read with other evidence brought on record, that he falls within the definition of an employer.

A perusal of the provision of Standing Order No. 18 shows, that it is only a workman who can seek redress under it and not an employer. Since we have held that the petitioner is an employer, his petition under Standing Order No. 18 is no; maintainable.

The result is that we dismiss this petition as not maintainable, but leave the parties to bear their own costs.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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