Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑531 of 1980, heard on 2nd November, 1982.

West Pakistan

‑‑ S. 2 (i)‑ Workman'‑Employee responsible to get work done from workers ; supervising machines and their repairs by workers ; occasionally giving practical instructions to workers in repair of machines and not performing mainly any manual or clerical work- Not a workman' and not entitled to invoke jurisdiction of Labour Court against termination of service‑Grievance petition‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A.

Mian Muhammad Yasin for Appellant.

Ch. Ghulam Qadir for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 2nd November 1982,

This appeal is directed against the decision dated 18th May 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby grievance petition of the respondent for re‑instatement was accepted and he directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits.

2. The facts are that one Riasat Ali supplied 4780 litres of milk for the appellant project on 19th November, 1979, which was received by the respondent in the capacity of Assistant Production Supervisor. Later on it was found that the containers of Riyasat Ali had a capacity 4500 litres only with the result that the respondent caused loss to the appel lant of 280 litres of milk. The respondent was charge‑sheeted. In reply he contended that he had received 4780 litres in as much as besides the containers milk was supplied by Riyasat Ali in cans and drums also. An inquiry was held which culminated in the dismissal of the respondent,

. 3. The respondent has also brought appeal claiming back benefits which were not allowed by the lower Court for the reason that he had succeeded on the ground of technical defects in the enquiry. Before the learned lower Court it was also contended on behalf of the appellant that the respondent was not a workman. The learned lower Court discussing promotion order Exh. P‑4 of the respondent, which mentions his duties held that he was workman under the 1. R. O. 1969 and Standing Orders (Ordinance). The finding that the respondent is covered by the definition of workman given in section 2 (xxviii) of the I. R. O. 1969 is correct, in as much as it was not proved by the appellant that the pay of the respondent was more than Rs. 800 and that his duties were supervisory. How ever, the findings of learned lower Courts to the effect that the respondent is covered by the definition of workman given in the Standing Orders Ordinance is not correct. The duties of the respondent given in Exh. P‑4 do not show that he was doing any manual or clerical work. The first thing which he had to do was to ensure that the production information through production sheets were provided daily to his superiors. It does not appear from the said duties that he had to prepare to the production sheets himself. Rather his duty was ensure that statements were provided to his superiors daily. The second duty to supervise and arrange to carry out maintenance of all equipments and keep them in, running conditions. The also does not sugguest that he had to repair or clean himself the equipments. The other duty was to ensure production control i. e. recombining, quality of in coming material and of finished good, waste control, cleanliness and the hygiene of the factory and outside area. Obviously he had to get the said work done from others and had to ensure that it had been done There is nothing to show that he had to do manual work. The last duty mentioned in Exh. P is training of personnel, carrying out the company's policies an instructions. This duty was neither clerical nor manual. The respon dent no doubt in his statement said that it was within his duties as assistant supervisor to repair and maintain packing machine but since it was not included in the duty list Exh. P‑4 it cannot be said in reality he was performing his duties. Being a supervisor he had to supervise the repair and maintenance work and even if at some occasion when the walkers working under him could not repair the packing machine, he himself repair the same or give instructions to the workers, it would not mean that repairing and maintenance was his main duty. Besides this the respondent did not say anything about his duties in his statement. The learned Presiding Officer copied down the duties given in Exh. P‑4 but did not discuss them after closing examination and that is why fell in error. It is clear from Exh. P‑4 and the statement of the respondent that neither he was doing manual nor clerical work and thus is not covered by the definition of workman given in section 2 (i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance and thus the said Ordinance did not guarantee any right to him for the infringement of which he could come to the Labour Court.

4. As the result of the observation made above I hold that the respondent is a worker as defined in the Standing Orders Ordinance and thus accepting the appeal of the appellant and dismiss the cross appeal of the respondent, set aside the order of the learned lower Court and restoring the order dismiss, and dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent. "

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.