Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑451 of 1979, heard on 21st September, 1980.

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

‑‑ S. 2 (i) and S. O. 12 (3) ‑ "Workman" ‑‑ Assistant Spinning Master‑‑No manual or clerical work performed duty being to check quality of goods produced and to supervise work of workers Such person, held not a workman‑Grievance petition against termination of service, held, not maintainable by Labour Court Grievance petition‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A.

A. Khaliq G. Khan for Appellant.

Ghulam Shah for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 21st September, 1980.

The appellant, who was employed in the respondent‑Mills as Assis tant Spinning Master, preferred a grievance petition before the learn ed VIth Labour Court, Hyderabad, alleging that because he had refused to intervene in a dispute between Mr. Razzaq, the Manager of the Mills, and one Mr. Kesar Abbas, as desired by the Managing Director of the respondent‑Mills, he was illegally looked out from the Mills with effect from 16th September. 1978, and was not allowed to perform his duties. The learned Labour Court has held that as the appellant was not a work man for the purposes of the Standing Orders, his grievance petition was not maintainable.

2. It may be pointed out that the respondent‑Mills, in their reply statement, had taken the specific plea that the appellant was not a work man either for the purposes of the I.R.O., or the Standing Orders and hence his grievance petition was not maintainable. The appellant thus had notice of this objection and consequently there was greater respon sibility on the appellant to establish that he was a workman falling within the purview of the Standing Orders and hence could maintain his grievance petition under clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25‑A, I.R.O. It, however, appears from the evidence of the appellant himself before the learned Labour Court that he was not employed to do any manual or clerical work, whether skilled or unskilled. In regard to the nature of his duties, the appellant hag stated before the learned Labour Court that his duty was to check the quality of goods produced and to see if the work was done properly or not. He has further stated that he was working directly under the Spinning Master, who was incharge of the Spinning Department, and in the absence of Spinning Master he was incharge of the Spinning Department. He has also con ceded that he was not a member of any Worker Union. Since the appellant was employed to check the quality of the goods produced by workers and to see that the work in the Spinning Department is done properly, and looking to the fact that the appellant's emoluments total led to Rs. 975 per month, it would appear that the learned Labour Court rightly held that the appellant was not employed to do any manual or clerical work, and consequently, he was not entitled to maintain grievance petition, not being a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders.

3. I would accordingly uphold the decision of the learned Labour Court and would dismiss the appeal.

Appeal 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.