Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. KAR‑559 of 1980, heard on 26th October 1980.
‑ S. 25‑A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ ment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 12(3) Termination of service challenged as violative of S. O. 12(3) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑Petition before Labour Court under S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 maintainable only if peti tioner a worker under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑Onus of proof on petitioner‑No proof adduced‑Record indicating petitioner per forming supervisory functions and controlling of work of staff working under him‑Petitioner, in circumstances, held, not a worker and petition rightly dismissed as not maintainable.
Johnson & Johnson v. Zubair Ahmed 1980 P L C 622 rel.
Wazir Ali F. Wazir for Appellant.
S. M. Yaqoob for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 26th October 1980.
The services of the appellant, who was lastly employed in the respondent -Corporation as Accounts Officer, were terminated, vide letter, dated 13‑12‑1976, with one month's pay in lieu of notice. The appellant challenged the orders of termination of his services before the learned Third Labour Court which dismissed his grievance petition on the ground that the appellant was not a workman for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Ordinance or the Standing Orders Ordinance. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has come up to this Tribunal in appeal.
2. The sole issue which fails to be considered in this appeal is whether the appellant is a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders. Since the appellant had challenged the termination of his services, his grievance petition would only be maintained under clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25‑A, I. R. O. and the maintainability of such a grievance petition would be dependent upon the appellant establishing that he was a workman for the purposes of the I. R. O., as pointed out by this Tribunal in the case of Johnson and Johnson v. Zubair Ahmed (1980 P L C 622). It was further held in that case that the burden of proof in regard to the question whether a person is or is not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders is on such person, i.e. the person claiming to be such a workman. Now, a person can only be deemed to be a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders if he is employed to do manual or clerical work, whether skilled or unskilled. In the instant case, though the appellant, in his grievance petition, has asserted that he is a worker within the definition provided in law, he has neither specifically claimed that he is a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders nor has he alleged that he was employed to perform manual or clerical work. In fact, the Standing Orders do not employ the term "worker". This term is only employed in the I. R. O. There is, thus, nothing in the grievance petition of the appellant to indicate that he was claiming to be a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders. However, Mr. Wazir Ali, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted since the appellant had claimed to be a worker under the law and as he was employed to do accounts work, the appellant should be deemed to have been employed to perform clerical duties and hence should be held to be a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders. In support of his contention Mr. Wazir Ali referred to the original appointment of the appellant as Accounts Assistant in April, 1971. The appellant, however, did not continue to be Accountant till the time of termination of his services. By Office Order, dated 11‑7‑1974, a separate Wages Department was created in the respondent establishment to prepare the wage sheets of the workers and to handle day to day wages' problems. This Department was headed by the appellant with three Assistants working under him. According to the aforesaid order, the nature of duties to be performed by the appellant was spelt out as follows:‑
"Mr. Dost Mohammad Bhojani will be Incharge of the above Department and he will he responsible for its efficient working. Further, he will chalk out and streamline programme for thorough checking/verification of wages payment, and the proper maintenance of its records in consultation with the Accounts Section."
3. It appears that the appellant was given an addition assignment in 1976 and was made Stores Incharge. This is not only established from the Office Order, dated 9‑10‑1974, but also from the payment sheets for share of workers profits and list of supervisory staff, which bears the signature of the appellant himself. The appellant also, has not disputed this position.
4. Since there is no evidence on record to establish that the appellant was employed to do any manual or clerical work and on the contrary there is ample evidence to indicate that he was required to perform supervisory functions and control the work of the staff working under him, the appellant cannot be considered to be a workman for the' purposes of the Standing Orders. Although the learned Presiding Officer has not dealt with in details with the actual functions to be performed by the appellant since there was material on record to show the nature of his functions and as this evidence was brought to my notice and relied upon by Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, the learned Representative for the respondent‑Corporation. I have examined and considered the same. This evidence, as already pointed out, negates the contentions of Mr. Wazir Ali that the appellant is a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders. I Would, accordingly, uphold the decision of the learned Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer