Find a Lawyer

Application No. KAR‑655 of 1981, heard on 6th December, 1981.

‑‑‑ Ss. 50 & 34‑Scope of S. 50‑Whether or not an employee referred to in settlement was a workman‑Question to be resolved on basis of nature of duties‑Outside scope of S. 50‑Settlement containing clause regarding up-gradation of Food Inspectors of Rice Export Corporation‑Contention of Corporation that Food Inspectors not being workmen any provision relating to them in settlement arrived at with Workers Union was not valid and binding‑Workers Union making application for interpretation of settlement under S. 50‑Matter, in circumstances, held, beyond scope of S. 50, workers union could more appropriately tile application under S. 34.

Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Employees' Union, Dacca P L C 1961 S C 403 and Workers of Bata Shoes Company v. Bata Shoes and another 1971 P L C 1 ref.

Muhammad Shafique Qureshi for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 6th December, 1981.

This purports to be an application under section 50, I. R. O., for the interpretation of sub‑clauses (j) and (k) of clause 23 of the agreement arrived at between the applicant union and Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Limited on 20th November, 1980, which read as under :‑

"(j) & (k) It is agreed that upgrading of Food Inspectors post in the cadre of Analyser shall be considered actively by the Management in view of the additional responsibilities assigned to them and final decision of the Management shall be communicated to the Union within three months' time."

The difficulty or doubt regarding the above provision in the agree ment is said to have arisen as according to the applicant union the Food Inspectors of the Rice Export Corporation are workmen for the purposes of Labour Laws while the stand of the Rice Export Corporation is that the Food Inspectors are not workmen for the purposes of the Labour Laws and, accordingly, the aforesaid provision in the agreement is not valid and binding. The stand of the Corporation is founded upon the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan v. Naeem Wahid, decided on 4th February, 1981, wherein it was held that Naeem Wahid, who was employed as Food Inspector at Pasroor Railway Station was not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders. That decision was given on the facts of that case. The respon dent Corporation also appears to have further relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Employees' Union, Dacca (PLC 1961 SC 403) and the Workers of Bata Shoes Company v. Bata Shoes and another (1971 P L C 1) where it was held that workmen are not entitled to raise questions relating to employees who belonged to a superior category or who are not workmen like them. The question, however, whether other Food Inspectors in the Rice Export Corporation are workmen either for the purposes of the Standing Orders or the I. R. O., can only be resolved on the basis of evidence as to the nature of their respective duties. The question would, thus, appear to be outside the scope of section 50, I. R. O. Perhaps an appli cation by the applicant union under section 34, I. R. O., would be more appropriate in the circumstances of the case. As far as the agreement itself is concerned, the provisions contained in sub‑clauses (j) and (k), appear to be quite clear and would lead no room for any doubt or' difficulty. I would, accordingly, dismiss this application 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.