Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑301 of 1982/Pb., decided on 11th April, 1983.

‑‑ S. 2 (xxviii) (a) & (b)‑"Workman"‑Employee whether or not a workman‑Not only duties but pay also a criteria‑House rent paid in cash as terms and conditions of service‑Included in definition of wages‑Assistant Works Manager of Urban Transport Corporation‑Performing mainly supervisory duties while assisting Works Manager‑Doing some clerical works as ancillary to main duties.‑Wages in excess of Rs. 800 p. m.‑Both conditions given in cl. (b) of S. 2 (xxviii) fulfilled‑Not a workman.

Asghar Mahmood for Appellant.

Yousaf Hussain Dilawari for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 2nd April, 1983.

This is an appeal preferred against the decision dated 21st April, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the respondents were directed to be paid bonus for the years 1979‑80.

2. The only point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant before me is that the respondents are not covered by the definition of workman given in section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969. On behalf of the appellant duty roster Exh. R‑I was pro duced before the learned lower Court. So far as wages are concerned, Shayam Raza (P. W. 2), one of the respondents, stated that he was getting the salary of Rs. 1,700 per mensem and other respondents were getting Its. 1,500 or above. The learned lower Court has adjudged the respondents as workman on the ground that main duties are to be considered. This is true but the question which is involved in the present case is whether the respondents are covered by the exceptions given in section 2 (xxviii). The exceptions are given in clauses (a) and (b). The latter clause says that if the duties are supervisory and wages are more than Its. 800 per mensem, the employee is not a workman. So not only the duties but pay also is t

be kept in‑view.

3. According to item No. 1 of Exh. R‑1, the Assistant Works Mana gers have to assist the Works Managers. Needless to say. that an employee while assisting the Manager has to perform the same duties which the officer to be assisted by him is performing. It would be idle to think that a Works Manager, who is the head of the branch is doing clerical work and not managerial or supervisory work. According to item No. 2, main duty obviously is to find out or know any technical or labour problem and the act of bringing it to the notice of the Works Manager is ancillary to main duty. Moreover, since such problems are brought to the notice of the Works Manager for at the spot solution, obviously they are to be placed orally in order to avoid the wasting of time by formally bringing them into black and white. Even if they are reported in form of a writing, this is ancillary to the main duty of finding out the difficulties. So far as item No. 3 is concerned, main duty is to check the repair progress and bringing it to the notice of the Works Manager is again ancillary to the main duty. Needless to say that unless progress is found out, no question ‑of its reporting to the Works Manager would arise.

4. Except items Nos. 14 and 15, the remaining do not show that the Assistant Works Manager has to do much of manual or clerical work. He has to ensure the doing of things mentioned in the items meaning that the work is to be done by others and he, on account of having supervisory duties has to ensure the doing of it. According to items Nos. 16 and 17, he is responsible for the correct preparation of duty roster and the correct performance of duty by the Foremen and the incharge of various sections. It is clear that unless he‑has supervisory powers, he neither can ensure, nor can be responsible that others would correctly perform their duties. According to item No. 14, the Assistant Works Manager has to maintain non‑availability registers upto date. No doubt, it is the duty of the Assistant Works Manager to maintain such a register, but I do not think that practically they themselves maintain the register. Even if they them selves maintain non‑availability register, this single item would not‑ bring them in the pale of the definition of workman. According to item No. 15, items received from stores or for repairs are to be checked for quantity and quality. To check the quantity, only counting is done, which is not a manual work and to check the quality, technical knowledge is applied which cannot be said to be of merely routine nature. So the close and minute examination of the duty roster Exh: R‑1 clearly shows that the main duties of the Assistant Works Manager are supervisory and a very little clerical and manual work to be done by the Assistant Works Manager is in reality ancillary to the main duties. The condition which is necessary to take the Assistant Works Managers from the pale of 'workman' is the wages. According to clause (b) of section 2 (xxviii), wages should be more than Rs. 800 per mensem. P. W. 2, who is one of the respondents, has said that he was getting Rs. 1,700 per mensem and other respondents Rs. 1,500 per mensem or above. The break‑up is not given. Allowance cannot be more than the double of basic pay. So they must be getting more than Rs. 800, per mensem even without those allowances that come within the definition of 'wages' as defined in the Payment of Wages Act. House rent is paid in cash and is included in the terms and conditions of B service. It cannot be called value of house accommodation, so is included in the definition of wages. So if house rent is added, the wages will further exceed Rs. 800 per mensem. Since both the conditions given in clause (b) of section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 are fulfilled, the Assistant Works Managers are not workmen.

5. As upshot of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, dismiss the grievance petitions of the respondents.

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.