Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑644 of 1980, heard on 14th October, 1980.

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

‑‑‑‑‑S. 2(i) read with Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.25‑A‑Workman‑Executive Engineer with Assistant Engineer under his supervision‑Assistant Engineer supervising work of Super visors‑Executive Engineer not performing any manual or clerical work‑Not a workman‑Grievance petition against termination of service of such Executive Engineer‑Not maintainable before Labour Court.

A. R. Puri for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 14th October 1980.

The services of the appellant, who was lastly employed in the res pondent Corporation as an Executive Engineer on total emoluments of Rs. 2,875 per month, were terminated by an order, dated 2nd August 1978. The appellant challenged the said order by way of a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court which has dismissed his peti tion on the grounds, firstly, that admittedly the I.R.O. is not applicable to the respondent‑Corporation, its application having been excluded by the Notification of the Ministry of Defence, dated 9th September 1976, and secondly, that the appellant was not a workman for the purpose of the Standing Orders, as he was mainly supposed to execute the works in charge through his subordinates and skilled and unskilled labour under him.

2. According to the averments made by the appellant himself in his grievance petition, he was originally employed in the respondent‑Corporation as Works Officer, later promoted as Assistant Engineer and subsequently promoted as Executive Engineer. It also appears from the instructions given by the appellant to his Assistant Engineer on 16th July 1978 that there are supervisors working under the Assistant Engineer. The appellant, thus, was four steps higher in status the Supervisors entrusted with the supervision of works. Apart from this, there is no evidence to show that the appellant was employed to do any manual or clerical work, whether skilled or unskilled, which is an essential require ment under the Standing Orders Ordinance. Even the appellant himself has not stated either in his grievance petition or in his evidence before the Labour Court that he was employed to do any such type of work. All that he has asserted in his affidavit before the learned Labour Court is that he was not performing any supervisory or managerial duties. This claim appears to be quite unfounded. According to the appellant's affidavit itself, the appellant was required to visit the site and used to give instructions to the Assistant Engineer Incharge as to how the works are to be executed. This is made further clear from the Memo, dated 16th July 1978 addressed by the appellant to the Assistant Engineer, which reads as follows

Subject: Flooring on the roof of Fokker Hangar

During my inspection on the roof of Fokker Hangar, where the work of laying screening 1:2:4 on the roof is not upto the required standard and specification with the result that there is heavy leak age of rain water. I have observed that you have not inspected the site of work as a result of which your Supervisor is not paying attention towards this important work.

(Sd.)

S. Masood Akhtar,

Executive Engineer (Maint.)."

3. It is thus clear that the appellant was not employed to do any manual or clerical work but his main duties were of a supervisory nature. It has been held by this Tribunal in the case of Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited v. Fatehullah Fahim, decided on 20th August 1979, that an Assistant Executive Engineer employed in the Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation cannot be considered to be workman for the purposes of Standing Orders as he performs supervisory functions and has not to do any manual or clerical work. The case of the appellant is much weaker in that he is an Executive Engineer, a post one step, higher then that of Assistant Executive Engineer.

4. The appellant also cannot be considered to be a workman for the purposes of the I.R.O. as admittedly I.R.O. is not applicable to the respondent corporation in view of the Notification, dated 9th September 1976.,

3. The appellant's grievance petition, accordingly, is not maintain able. I would, therefore, uphold the order of the learned Labour Court and dismiss this appeal.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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