Find a Lawyer

HI

Appeal No. KAR‑60 of 1976, heard on 7th October 1976.

‑‑ S. 25‑A read with S. 2(xxviil)‑Workman‑Supervisor drawing more than Rs. 800 p. m.--‑Not a workman‑Fact of his being incharge of one or entire establishment of concern ‑Would not take him out of category of Supervisors‑Employment in supervisory capacity‑Basic point for consideration.

‑‑ S. 25‑A ‑ Probationary employee;‑ Person employed on pro bation for period of three months and his services terminated before expiry of probationary period‑Held, no exception could be taken to removal from service.

Mustafa Kamal Mirza for Appellant.

Abdul Hadi Farid for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 7th October 1976.

This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application made under section 25‑A, I. R. O. against the removal from service.

2. The applicant was a supervisor working as Maintenance Supervisor, robber‑Fitter on a salary of Rs. 1,400 per month. He was appointed on 22nd July, 1974 temporarily on probation for three months. He was, however discharged from service on 2nd October, 1974, before the expiry of the period of probation.

3. Aggrieved by the removal from service the appellant served a grievance notice and approached Labour Court by way of application under section 25‑A, I. R. O. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the appellant was not a workman within the meaning of I. R. O. and his services were terminated during the period of probation. The learned Presiding Officer on the assessment of the evidence upheld both these objec tions and dismissed the application.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I find no reason, to interfere with the impugned order. The applicant was a supervisor drawing Rs. 1,400 per month, and, therefore, he cannot be treated to be a workman as defined by section 2 (xxviii), I. R. O. It was, however, pleaded on behalf of the appellant that he was in charge of one section of the establishment and, therefore, he was a workman. I find no force in this contention. Supervisor is a supervisor and not a workman if he is drawing more that Rs. 800 per month irrespective of the fact that he is in charge of one establish ment or the entire establishment of the concern. He was employed in a supervisory capacity which is the basic point for consideration.

5. Secondly, there can be no manner of dispute that he was employed on probation for a period of three months and his services were terminated before the expiry of that period. Consequently, no exception can be taken to the removal of the service during that period.

6. In the result the appeal is 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.