Find a Lawyer

-- S. 2 (i)-" Workman"-Whether or not an employee a workman- Determining factor: Nature of main or principal duties--Security Assistant claiming performing clerical duties-Labour Court not making any distinction between a Watchman /Security Officer and Security Assistant without any material evidence relating to duties being performed-Matter needing determination on basis of evidence-Case remanded-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 37.

-- S. 25-A-Grievance notice to employer-Representation request ing management to re-consider and review dismissal order and for being taken back in service-To be considered as grievance notice.

Akhtar Ali Mahmood for Appellant.

Rafat Usmani for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 31st August, 1981.

By its short decision, given on 13th April, 1981, the learned III rd Labour Court has dismissed the grievance petition of appellant Muhammad Ramzan, against his dismissal from service, on the grounds, firstly, that neither the requisite grievance notice had been filed with the grievance petition nor it has been relied upon by the appellant in his grievance petition, and secondly, that the appellant, being a security assistant, was not workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders, and consequently was not entitled to file and maintain a grievance petition against his dismissal from service. In support of his findings, the learned Labour Court has cited a number of decisions of this Tribunal, including the decision in the case of Syed Lal Khan v. Managing Director, Rex Talkies, decided on 14th May, 1980. The learned Labour Court, however, has fallen into error in not making a distinction between a watchman/security officer and a security assistant/assistant security i officer. Normally the duties of the first category of employees would be neither manual nor clerical while the main duties of the latter category of employees would be in connection with office work. In any case, for determining whether either category of employees are employed in manual or clerical work the nature of their main duties or principle duties has to be looked into. As no evidence was led before the learned Labour Court on this point, it had no material on the basis of which it could come to a finding that the appellate was not employed not required to perform manual or clerical duties. The job specification of the appellant has been filed with the memo. of appeal. Some of the functions specified in the job specification seem to indicate that some sort of clerical work was also implied. However, it is for the learned Labour Court to give an opportunity to both parties to lead evidence on this issue and thereafter t weigh the evidence and give its finding thereon.

2. On the second issue also, namely the want of grievance notice, the learned Labour Court has fallen into error. In paragraph 12 of his grievance petition, it is expressly stated that the appellant had made representations, dated 27th January, 1981, 12th February, 1981 and 3^rdMarch, 1981, against the order of his dismissal from service. Photostat copies of these representations have been filed by Mr. Akhtar Ali Mahmood, the learned counsel for the appellant. In these representations, the appellant has requested the management to reconsider and review the e orders for his dismissal from service and to take him back in service. They thus should be considered as requisite grievance notices under the law.

3. In view of the above position, I would set aside the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court and remand the case back to it for decision on merits in the light of the above observations made by this Tribunal. The learned Labour Court should ensure speedy disposal of the case.

Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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