Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. GA‑38 of 1984, decided on 16th October, 1984.

‑‑S. 2 (xxviii)‑"Workman"‑Bank employee Branch Manager -Supervising wok of other employees‑Getting basic pay of Rs. 1,000 per mensem‑Doing clerical work in preparing weekly and monthly statements incidental to main duties of supervision and absence of powers of hire and fire, in circumstances, held, would not bring such employee with definition of "workman".

Zafar Saleem for Appellant.

A. R. Sheikh for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 14th October, 1984.

This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 25th January, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed. The respondent has raised cross objections also, which are being disposed of alongwith the appeal.

2. The allegation for which the appellant was punished was that he paid only Rs. 200 as repairing charges whereas he charged Rs. 500 from the respondent bank. By way of punishment his increment for the year 1981 was permanently stopped. He was transferred and it was directed that for two years he should not be made incharge of any branch. The learned lower Court has held that the appellant is not a workman and that the charge was established.

3. Admittedly, the appellant was Manger of Chobara Branch. He says that he was doing clerical work. In cross‑examination he admitted that he used to supervise the work of other employees employed in the branch and that his basic pay was about Rs. 1,000 and with allowances it was Rs. 1,500 or 1,600. Since he was the Manager and Incharge of the branch, his main duty could be managerial and supervisory. Even if little clerical work was being done by him, it was not his main duty: In the circumstances of the case it is not believable that the appellant was actually doing clerical work. Besides him there was admittedly a cashier and a 2nd officer. So even if cashier was not in a position to do the whole clerical work, the 2nd‑officer could have helped him and not the Manager. When a branch consists of two employees only out of whom one is the Manager or the Incharge, and the others is a clerk it may be said that the Incharge was doing clerical work also to help the clerk. Since in the present case a 2nd officer was also working, this is not true that the appellant was doing clerical work. Weekly and monthly statements are incidental to the main duties. Moreover, this kind of work is of casual nature and this would not bring a Manager or an Incharge within the purview of a work‑man as defined in section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Hiring and firing are not the only duties of a Manager. If one has no such powers but is discharging the other functions of Manager, he would not become a workman.

4. Even if for the sake of arguments it be said that the appellant was not a Manager, since he admitted in his cross‑examination that he used to supervise the work of other employees of the branch and that his basic pay was Rs. 1,000, he stood ousted from the definition of workman. The appellant was, therefore, rightly declared by the learned lower Court as a non‑workman.

5. So far as merits of the case are concerned, it has been wrongly found by the learned lower Court that the charges were established against the appellant. The mechanic who bad repaired the motor cycle said during the enquiry that be had received Rs. 500 from the appellant and had returned Rs. 300, when it was complained that the vehicle did not function. Admittedly, the appellant bad deposited Rs. 300. So no misappropriation took place. It has been argued that the motor cycle was to be got repaired from Sarlas Autos but the appellant got it repaired from Muhammad Ashraf. Exh. P. 5 does not show that direction was to get the vehicles repaired from Sarlas Autos. It only speaks of the estimate given by the persons named therein. Names of two persons are given and it is not specifically mentioned therein that from any one of the two motor cycle be got repaired. Rather according to this document, the repairing charges were to be according to the estimate given by the two persons named therein.

6. Only one objection has been raised by the respondent and that is that the Award of the Wage Commission not being an. Award as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the grievance petition is out of the scope of section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, Section 38‑D of the Ordinance is a complete answer to it. The section referred to above says that the decisions of the Wage Commission shall be deemed to be an Award of the Full Bench of the Commission and the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 would apply to it. So remedy can be sought under section 25‑A for the infringement of any right guaranteed by the Wage Commission Award. The objection is thus overruled.

7. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

A.E

Find a Lawyer Near You

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