Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑166 of 1981, heard on 6^thApril, 1981.

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

‑‑‑ S. 2 (i) & S. O. 12(3)‑Workman‑Whether or not an em ployee was a workman‑Depends upon nature of duties Assistant Engineer having several workmen under him recom mending appointments, action against unsuitable employees, criticising or commenting on their work and fixing their duties Duties mainly of supervisory nature‑Doing of some manual work occasionally on machines in order to take work from and guide workers in performance of their duties, held, would not alter status of such employee‑Fact of being under a Chief Engineer or getting bonus as paid to workers and other employees, held further, would not make him a worker‑‑Grievance petition against termination of service, held, rightly rejected as not maintainable‑Grievance petition‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXII1 of 1969), S. 25‑A.

Talat Farooq v. Chloride (Pakistan) Ltd. C.P.S.L.A. No. K‑145 of 1976 (unreported) rel.

Bashir A. Malik v. Punjab Labour Court P L, D 1973 Lah. 594 distinguished.

Khalid Javed for Appellant.

Date of bearing: 6^thApril, 1981.

The services of the appellant, who was employed as an Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the respondent mills, were terminated with effect from 21st July, 1980, on the ground that his services were no longer required. The appellant challenged these orders before the learned IIIrd Labour Court, which has dismissed his grievance petition by its decision given on 16th February, 1981. The learned Labour Court has held in the impugned decision that, as the appellant is not a workman for the pur poses of the Standing Orders, his grievance petition is not maintainable under the provision of clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25‑A, I.R.O. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

It was contended by Mr. Khalid Javed, that the learned Labour Court has taken an erroneous view of the evidence on record and that there was tangible evidence in support of the contention of the appellant that he was not only employed to do but was actually performing manual work in the respondent mills. The learned counsel relied, in support of his contention upon paragraph 5 of the affidavit given by the appellant before the learned Court, which details the following duties to be per formed by the appellant :‑

"(i) That the attendance procedure is the same as of all the lower staff i.e. wireman, electrician, winders, and Assistant Supervisor etc. I was punching my card as workman.

(ii) That the bonus paid to the other workers is also paid to me as a workman.

(iii) My nature of duties involved physical and manual work alone, I am a technical hand and I was personally doing manual work byway of repairing and installation of Electrical components of all the machines and other electrical installations in the mills. I was full time doing manual work.

(iv) I with all the other skilled and unskilled workers were supposed to work under the instructions of the Chief Engineer who was the Incharge of the entire Electrical department.

(v) I bad been working with my own hands under the instructions of the Chief Engineer on all the machines comprising of Blow room machines. Carding Drawing, Simplex, Ring, Cone Wind ing, Weaving, Sizing and Warping machines etc., wherever the work was to be carried on manually. The electrical repairing and over‑hauling with my own hands was also one of my duty.

(vi) I as Assistant Engineer had not any authority and powers for taking administrative, supervisory or managerial action. No one was working under me nor I was supervising any body's work.

(vii) I could not issue any warning or charge‑sheet. I could not grant any leave to any worker. I could not transfer any fellow worker. I had no hire and fire powers. I did not check the attendance of my fellow workers. I was not authorized to grant any monetory benefits to any other worker. I was not competent to write annual confidential reports of a worker as I was myself a workman."

3. The appellant, however, not only has failed to give details of the specific work which he was employed to do or which he had perform ed but further did not examine either the Chief Engineer under whom he was working or any other witness in support of his contention that he was required to perform manual work.

4. Now, as regards the contention of the appellant that he was required to punch his Card like any other workman, it has been explained by Salim Anwar Malik, Mechanical Engineer in the respondent Mills, that every employee in the respondent mills, including the Chief Engineer, is required to punch his Card. Nothing, therefore, turn on the requirement by the appellant to punch his Card. The payment of bonus to the appel lant also does not establish that he was a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders, employed to do manual work. It is common practice with many establishments to give bonus to their officers.

5. Nothing also turns on the fact that the appellant was required to work under the instructions of the Chief Engineer. The mere fact that a person is not the head of the organization or the head of the department dose not mean that he is a workman. It has bees observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Talat Farooq v. Chloride (Pakistan) Ltd. (Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑145 of 1976) that a person is not be considered a workman merely because he may be working under some one else for after all even the General Manager of the Company has to work under the Directors of the Company.

6. The appellant, in his evidence before the learned Labour Court while admitting the fact that 20 persons were working in the Electrical department, denied that they were working under him and contended that they were in fact working under the Chief Engineer. There is, however, tangible evidence to show that they were to fact working under him. There is in this behalf first of ail the evidence of Salim Anwar Malik, the Mechanical Engineer in the respondent mills. He has testified that the 20 persons employed in the Electrical Department of the respondent mills were working under the appellant. There is mass of evidence to support his testimony. First of all, there is the logbook wherein the work per formed by the employees in the Electrical Department and the defects reported and or repaired are recorded. The entries in the log book show the work to be done by other employees in the Electrical depart ment but not that of the Electrical Assistant Engineer. In fact the tries in the log book show that the Assistant Electrical Engineer approv ed the work done by the employees in the Electrical department. Further support to the testimony of Engineer Salim Anwar Malik is provided by the workshop Job Order Book of the Electrical department wherein all works jobs pertaining to that department are entered. These jobs works have been sanctioned by the Assistant Electrical Engineer.

6‑A. Finally, there are numerous letters/memos. on record, all written by the appellant, recommencing appointments to be made, actions to be taken against unsuitable employees, criticising or commenting on the work of the employees and finally fixing duties to be performed by they employees in the Electrical department. These pieces of evidence fully establish that the appellant was engaged in a supervisory capacity and was not employed or required to do manual work. It is possible that on B occasions he may have found it necessary to do some manual work, but that was not his primary duties which appears to have been to take work from the employees of the Electrical Department and guide them in the performance of duties.

7. Mr. Khalid Javed has relied upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in the case of Bashir A. Malik v. Punjab Labour Court (P L D 1973 Lab. 594) in support of his contention that an Engineer is a work man for the purposes of the Standing Orders. The judgment relied upon by him, however, is distinguishable as in that case the duties which the shift engineer was required to perform and which were detailed in the annexure to the petition, included a large number of items which the shift engineer was supposed to do with his own hands and skill for the purpose of repair of the various machine installed in the Hotel in which he was employed. This is not the case in the present proceedings.

8. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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