Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. SUK‑649 of 1981, heard on 5th January, 1981.

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

‑‑ S. 2(i) & S. O. 12‑‑ 1Workman"‑Bank Officer having power of attorney authorised to do important administrative and man agerial functions, and working as Branch Manager‑Not a work man‑Nor entitled to file grievance petition against termination of service‑Grievance petition‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A.

Muhammad Ali Ghani Khan v. Habib Bank Limited, Karachi 1979 P L C 1.56 and

Muhammad Iqbal Soomro v. United Bank Limited. Karachi 1978 P L C 360 rel.

Nizamuddin Baloch for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 5th January, 1982.

This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned V1Ith Labour Court, given on 20th October, 1981, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant challenging the termination of his services as an Officer of the respondent Bank. The sole ground upon which the learned Labour Court has dismissed the grievance petition is that the appellant, being an officer of the Bank and moreover having a Power of Attorney in his favour, was not entitled to file and maintain a grievance petition under Standing Order 12 read with section 25‑A, 1, R

2. Mr. Nizamuddin Baloch, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that notwithstanding the fact that the appellant was an officer of the respondent Bank, he was employed to do duties of manual and clerical nature and hence falls within the definition of "workman" as given in the Standing Orders. In support of his contention, he relied upon 2 pieces of evidence. The first is the averment made by the appellant in his grievance petition to the effect that in August, 1979, he was posted in the Zonal Office of the Bank at Sukkur where he was per forming duties essentially clerical and manual in nature. The second piece of evidence relied upon by Mr. Nizamuddin Baloch is the admission made in his cross‑examination before the learned Labour Court by Mr. Saadat Ali, the witness for the respondent Bank, that in the Zonal Office, the appellant used to do miscellaneous work before the termination of his services. It is an admitted position that the appellant was originally taken up in the service of the Bank in June, 1971, and upon completion of his training, was confirmed as an officer of the Bank in June, 1972. It is further not disputed that the appellant at the time of termination of his services was working as an officer, drawing a basic salary of Rs. 1,050 per month besides other allowances and monetary benefits, and further a Power of Attorney, as given to officers of the Bank, had been issued in his favour. The said Power of Attorney entitled the appellant to perform a number of managerial and administrative acts, and generally to act on behalf of the Bank. Some of these acts were authorized to be done by the appellant jointly with another attorney and others by him alone without joining with any other attorney. Looking to the wide powers conferred upon the appellant by the aforesaid Power of Attorney, it is clear that the appellant was empowered to do important administrative and managerial functions which are wholly out side the ambit of workmen employed to do manual or clerical functions. I am fortified in my view by 2 decisions of this Tribunal, reported as Muhammad 'Ali Ghani Khan v. Habib Bank Limited, Karachi (1979 P L C 156) and Muhammad 1qbal Soomro v. United Bank Limited, Karachi (1978 P L C 360).

3. It may be pointed out that before filing the present grievance petition out of which this appeal has arisen, the appellant on 20th Septem ber, 1980, had filed an earlier grievance petition against the termination of his services. The said grievance petition was dismissed by the learned Labour Court on 13th December, 1980. Against the said decision, the appellant preferred an appeal to this Tribunal, but the appeal was withdrawn and not pressed as the appellant wanted to avail the opportunity of an appeal to his administra tive authority in the Bank. As his appeal to the said authority has borne no fruit, he preferred a second grievance petition to the Labour Court which has again dismissed the same. It is pertinent to note that in his first grievance petition, dated 20th September, 1980, the appellant has not claimed that he was performing clerical or manual duties but on the con trary, has taken the stand that he was working as an Officer. In his evidence before the learned Labour Court in connection with the said application he admitted that he was performing the duties of Manager at Kandhkot Branch and was looking after the interests of the Bank as Manager. In view of the above position, together with the circumstances that the appellant held a Power of Attorney and was drawing a basic salary of Rs. 1,050 I am of the view that the appellant cannot be con sidered to fall within the definition of "workman" as given in the Standing Orders. 1 would, therefore, concur in the view taken by the learned Labour Court that the appellant's grievance petition was not maintainable, and would dismiss the appeal 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.