Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑801 of 1980, decided on 28th .November, 1982.

‑‑ S. 2 (i)‑Manual work‑Means work done with hands‑Keeping watch over staff and to roam about‑Does not amount to manual work‑Security Inspector performing duty of keeping watch over security staff and to roam about on each gate for security purpose Not a workman‑Not entitled to invoke jurisdiction of Labour Court for remedy of re‑instatement‑Industrial Relations Ordi nance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A.

Muhammad Saleem Khan for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 20th November, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision, dated 30th ' of October, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed‑to be re‑instated, with back benefits.

2. The respondent was a Security Inspector is the Central Workshop. On the night of 21st of March, 1978 fire broke up in G. T. S. Workshop No. 2. Gujrat. The allegation against the respondent was that he bad shown irresponsibility/negligence and lack of interest in the discharge of his duty. The police had investigated the case and the matter went to Special Military Court. The accused were acquitted and the said Court observed that departmental section may be taken against the security guard. The observation in respect of the respondent was that he should be taken to task by the management for not arranging fire-fighting equipment before the incident particularly when the incident was expected.

3. On behalf of the appellant, an objection was raised that the respondent being a Security Inspector was not covered by the definition of workman. The learned lower Court found the respondent was covered by the definition inasmuch as the appellant failed to produce the roster on duties and the respondent appearing as his own witness had deposed that his duties were of manual nature. The respondent in his statement explained that his duty was to keep watch on the security staff and he had to roam about on each gate for security purposes. On the basis of this statement, the respondent was declared as a workman.

4. The statement made by the respondent was not sufficient to hold him as a workman. To keep a watch over the entire staff and to roam about do not amount to doing any manual work. Manual work is that which is done with hands. The Security guard and Security Inspec tor have not to do any manual work. They have to remain present but have not to do any work with their hands. Keeping a watch on the staff obviously is not a work to be done by hands. The mere fact that the appellant had not produced any duty roster was not sufficient to hold the respondent as a workman when from the duties stated by him A it appears that the respondent had not to do any manual work. The allegations against the respondent may or may not amount to miscon duct, but since he was ‑ not a workman, he came to the wrong forum. The learned Labour Courts can hear the cases of only those persons, who are covered by the definition of workman. The respondent may be covered by the definition of workman given in the I R.O. but since he derives a guaranteed right from Standing Orders Ordinance it was necessary that he should have been covered by definition of workman given in the said Ordinance.

5. As a result bf the observations made above, I accept the appeal ex parte and setting aside the decision of the learned lower court dismisses the grievance petition of the respondent.

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.