Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑524 of 1983, decided on 25th January, 1984.

‑‑‑‑ Ss. 2 (xxviii) & 25‑A and West Pakistan Industrial and Com mercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2 (1)‑"Workman"‑Bank employee‑Auditor‑No supervisory or managerial duties‑ A workman under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑ Entitled to grievance petition before Labour Court‑Definition of workman under S. 2 (i) .of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordi nance, 1968 not applicable.

Ch. Inayatullah for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 23rd January, 1984.

The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 24th September, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed as time‑barred and on the ground that he failed to prove himself as a workman.

2. The learned lower Court has erred in holding that the appellant is not a workman. Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 not being applicable to Nationalised Banks, the definition of workman given in section (2) (i) of the said Ordinance does not apply. The appellant is not covered by the definition of employer, so is a workman. Being an Auditor he had no supervisory or managerial duties, so does not come within the exceptions and does not stand ousted from the definition of workman. Auditing and checking of accounts are neither managerial nor supervisory duties. The duty of an auditor or a checker is to point out and report the mistakes. This is not a supervisory duty. Moreover, there is no evidence that his pay exceeded Rs. 800 per mensem. He was, therefore, a workman as defined in section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

3. However, the finding of the learned lower Court is correct that the grievance petition is time‑barred. A medical certificate is on the file but neither it was tendered in evidence, nor the appellant spoke of it in his statement. It suggests that the appellant suffered from Renal Colic on 27th April, 1981 and bed rest was advised to him from 27th April, 1981 to 27th June, 1981. The certificate is dated 27th April, 1981. There is no evidence that the appellant had no adult male member of his family to contract his counsel and get a grievance petition prepared and signed by him. He could send a petition bearing his signatures, to his counsel for presentation and, thereafter, adjournment could have been requested on the ground of illness. The appellant did not say that after serving the grievance notice he had fallen ill. So, there is no evidence that he actually fell ill. Since the medical certificate was not tendered in evidence, the respondent had no opportunity to meet it.

4. As a result of what has been said above, the appeal is dismissed, in limine.

A. E. 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.