Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑554 of 1980, decided on 29th September, 1980.

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

S. 2(i)‑"Workman"‑Assistant Accounts Officer performing no manual or clerical work and salary Rs. 2,700 p. m.‑Incharge of a section and competent to sign cheques up to Rs. 10,000, and issue in structions to lower staff‑Not a workman‑Fact that such person was working under supervision of Chief Accounts Officer, held, would not make him a workman‑Such person, held not entitled to make grievance petition before Labour Court against termination of service Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A.

Muhammad Ahmad for Appellant.'

The appellant, who was retired from the service of the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation as Assistant Accounts Officer filed a grievance petition under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, before the learned Vth Labour Court, claiming that whereas he was entitled to gratuity of Rs. 78,000, on retirement, he has been paid gratuity amounting to Rs. 50,000, only. He accordingly prayed for a direction to the respondents Karachi Electric Supply Corporation to pay him the balance of his gratuity. The learned Labour Court has held that the appellant's grievance petition is not maintainable, firstly, as he is not a workman either for the purposes of the Standing Orders or the Industrial Relations Ordinance, and secondly, the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act are applicable to him. In support of the second ground for holding that the appellant's grievance petition is not maintainable, the learned Labour Court relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case reported in P L D 179 Kar. 109.

2. The appellant, having retired from service and being no longer in the employment of the respondent‑Corporation, does not fall within the definition of "workman" as given .in the Industrial Relations Ordinance. That definition covers only such workers as are still in employment, except that in relation to an industrial dispute, the definition includes persons who have been dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid‑off or otherwise removed from employment in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute or their dismissal, discharge, retrenchment, lay‑off or removal has led to that dispute. The appellant also does not fall within the definition of "workman" as given in the Standing Orders as he was not employed immediately before his retirement, to do any manual or clerical work, whether skilled or unskilled. The appellant himself has admitted in his evidence before the learned Labour Court that he was drawing a consolidated salary of Rs. 2700, per month, that he was incharge of the Provident Fund Section, that about 13 or 14 workers were working in the Provident Fund Section under him, that he was empowered to sign cheques upto the extent of Rs. 10,000, and that he used to issue instructions to the staff of the Provident Fund Section. There is no evidence to show that the appellant was employed or even required to do any manual or clerical work. No doubt, the appellant was working under the supervision of the Chief Accountant, but as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Talat Farooq v. Messrs Choloride Pakistan Ltd., decided on 21‑9‑1976, the mere fact that an employee is working under some one else does not by itself make him a workman, for after all even the General Manager of the company has to work under the Directors of the company. In the instant case, the facts on record clearly indicate that the appellant is not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders.

3. For the above reasons, I would uphold the decision of the learned Labour Court and dismiss the appeal in limine. Needless to add that the dismissal of this appeal does not preclude the appellant from pursuing a any other remedy that may be legally available to him for the enforcement of his claim.

Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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