Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. RI‑183 of 1981, decided on 20th February, 1983.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑---

--‑‑Ss. 2 (viii) & (xxviii), 25‑A & 37‑"Workmen"‑"Employer" Posting and designation of a person as incharge of a Branch of Bank‑Does not necessarily imply that he manages the Branch‑Bank employee posted as incharge of Branch‑Grievance petition dismissed by Labour Court on ground that he was not a. workman‑ Emoluments Rs. 900 p. m. but no break‑up given indicating that excluding allowances which do not form part of wages total wages exceeded Rs. 800 p. m.‑No evidence indicative of managerial powers regarding grant of leave or appointment or action against employees‑Circumstances raising inference that petition doing correspondence and preparing vouchers‑Petitioner, in circum stances, held, a workman and order of Labour Court set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for decision on merits.

Kh. M. Farooq for Appellant.

Irshad Ali Mian for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 2nd February, 1983.

This appeal is directed against the decision, dated 2nd March, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed on the sole ground that he was not a workman.

2. The learned lower Court has held that every branch is to be managed by some person. As the appellant was designated as incharge, it was held that he had been managing the branch. This is true that every branch is to be managed by some one but this is not necessary that a person posted in the branch and designated as incharge impliedly manages the branch. From the nature of duties assigned to him it can be judged whether he was actually managing the branch. Since the case of the appellant is that he is a workman, he had naturally to conceal his actual duties and the respondent had to disclose the actual duties, if they were managerial, but neither any duty roster or any orders passed by the appellant were produced before the learned lower Court. R. W‑1 said nothing about the duties of the appellant in his examination‑in‑chief, except this that the appellant was entitled to certain allowances as manager but in this respect also he did not say whether actually the appellant was being allowed those allowances. In cross‑examination he said that without seeing the record, he could not say what were his duties, such as posting in the ledgers, preparation of vouchers, correspondence and despatch of letters etc. Feeling offended by the prolong questions the witness voluntarily stated that as a manager he was responsible for deposit, business development and management of the branch. But‑ no work done by the appellant was produced as specimen. Manager is a big post. Without giving managerial powers, work of supervision can be taken from a person who is the highest authority in the branch, but since no evidence was' produced by the respondent, this is not known if the appellant was acting as a super visor. Even if it is assumed that he was acting as supervisor, as there is no other officer above him in the branch, there is no evidence that his wages exceeded Rs. 800. Total emoluments include certain such allowances also which cannot be legally considered as wages. Total emoluments of the appellant are said to be Rs. 900 p. m. but unless break‑up is given, it is unsafe that wages exceeded Rs. 800. R. W‑1 said that the cashier was doing clerical work. Even if it was, he could not be in a position to do the whole clerical work. His own duties as cashier are many. So, it cannot be denied that the appellant was doing clerical work. Admittedly, there was no clerk, so the cashier and the appellant both may be discharging those duties. In the absence of evidence that the appellant was working as supervisor, the inference is that he had been doing the work of correspondence and preparation of vouchers. There is no evidence that he had powers to grant leave to appoint any person or to take any action against any person. He was, therefore, a workman.

3. As upshot of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, remand the case for decision on merits.

A. E. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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