Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. FD‑201 of 1982, decided on 16th Novembers. 1982.

West Pakistan

‑‑S 2 (i)‑Watchman‑Guarding factory premises‑Not performing any manual work‑Not a workman‑Grievance petition against dismissal, held, rightly held as not maintainable‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38.

Munawwar Ahmad Javed for 'Petitioner

Date of hearing :18th November, 1982.

This appeal is directed against the decision dated 8‑5‑8.2 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 4, .Faisalabad whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.

2. The appellant was a watchman. On the night of 2nd April, 1981 43 bundles of jute were stolen from the Sammundri Road godown where the appellant was on duty. 'He was therefore charge‑sheeted for neglect of work, inefficiency and careless performance of duties.

3. The point on which the case of the appellant fails is that he being a watchman is not covered by the definition of workman given in section 2 (i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. In the written statement the respondent had taken the plea that the appellant was not a workman, but the appellant did not produce any evidence regarding his duties. From the evidence brought on the inquiry file it appears that the appellant used to guard the premises at night. Such an employee has not to do any manual work. Manual work is that which is done by hands. Obviously a watchman has not to do any work with hands. He may be patrolling but while discharging such a duty has not to do any manual work. There are certain such chowkidars who have to do some manual work br it the appellant was not that kind of chowkidar. The gatekeepers of factories have to close and open the gates when any goods are brought in and taken out of the factory. They check the goods and make entry in the relevant record. But a, watchman guarding the premises has not to do any manual or clerical work like the gateman of a factory. The learned lower Court therefore rightly held that the appellant was not a workman.

As a result of the discussion made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it is limine.

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.