Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 485 of 1983, decided on 6th April, 1983,

‑‑‑ S. 2 (i)‑"Workman"‑Road Inspector supervising work of gangs engaged on roads‑Not manual or clerical job‑Not a workman‑Travelling ten‑ miles to supervise work of gangs, held, cannot be termed as manual work.

‑‑ S. 2 (b) (iii) read with Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923), Sehed. II, cl. (viii)‑Road Inspector in Highways De partment‑Supervising gangs engaged on roads‑Duties not relating to construction, repair or demolition of road‑Not a workman but a civil servant.

Ch. Nazir Hussain for Appellant.

The petitioner is working in the Highways Department as a Road Inspector. He was dismissed from service on account of shortage of construction material. He challenged the orders of his dismissal. before the Labour Court and the Labour Court No. 9 Multan directed his re instatement but did not order back benefits. He challenged the orders in appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal seeking back benefits and the Chief Engineer, Highways Department Punjab challenged the orders of the Labour Court in appeal against the re‑instatement order ed by the Labour Court. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal after hearing both the appeals has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not engaged in any manual or clerical job and, therefore, was not a workman under the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The appeal made by the Chief Engineer was, therefore, accepted and the order of reinstate ment made by the Punjab Labour Court No. 9 Multan was set aside. The petitioner challenges the orders of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in the present writ petition on the ground that he is a workman and orders of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal of 3rd April, 1983 are without lawful authority.

Admittedly the petitioner does no work with his hands and the nature of his duties are not clerical. He supervises the work of gangs' engaged on the roads and for that purpose has to cover the road stretch of 10 miles. In my view he is obviously not engaged in any manual or A clerical work and similarly his travel of 10 miles a day in order to super‑1 vise the work of the gang men cannot be termed as manual work. The judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, therefore, that the petitioner is not a workman under the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is justified.

The petitioner is an employee of the Government of the Punjab and would be covered by the definition of a civil servant but for the exclusion clause relating to persons who are covered by Workmen's Compensation Act. An objection was taken before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tri bunal to the effect that the petitioner was a civil servant but this objec tion was rejected as according to the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, the duties of the petitioner were covered by clause (viii) of Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act. This clause relates to persons who are employed in the construction, repair or demolition of road or a tunnel. The duties of the present petitioner are not such that he is employed in the construction, repair or demolition of a road. He supervises the work of persons who are so engaged and does no such thing himself. In my view, therefore, he is not excluded from the definition of civil servant by applying the Workmen's Compensation Act. Since he is a civil servant, in the Labour Court would have no jurisdiction and the Chief Engineer's appeal could be accepted on that ground also. Viewed from either angle the orders of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, dated 3rd April, 1983 do not call for interference. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.

A. E. Petition 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.