Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. LHR‑722 of 1984 and LHR‑2 of 1985, decided on 10th March, 1985.

‑‑S. 2 (xxviii), West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ ment Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2 (i)‑"Work man"‑Bata Shoes Company employee getting pay of Rs. 1,113 and allowances Rs. 400 p.m. issuing charge‑sheets and granting leave to workers under him---Doing mainly supervisory duties‑Pre paring some statements periodically not involving routine clerical work and preparing samples of shoes involving initiative, special talent and extraordinary skill‑Not a workman.

1983 P L C 365 ; 1964 P L C 1301 and 1971 P L C 1 rel.

M. S. Bokhari for Petitioner.

Ch. Riaz Ahmad for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 6th March, 1985.

The decision dated 4th December, 1984 recorded by the learned Pre siding Officer Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged, whereby Anwar Hussain (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. The respon dent has in his appeal claimed back benefits, whereas Bata (Pakistan) Limited (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of reinstatement of the respondent in service. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The only point argued before me is of the status of the respondent as a workman or a supervisor. According to section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, a person employed in a super visory capacity whose wages are more than Rs. 800 p.m. is not a workman. The respondent stated that his duties were to prepare programmes of the workers and to get report of the work done by the workers, to make daily statement regarding the work done, supply material and suggest remedy of the problems, to prepare daily statement of 15/20 factories in the leather-shop, to check the daily report regarding the payment of piece rate workers and check the product. He produced Exhs. P. 1 to P. 28 on the point. He admitted in cross‑examination that about 80 employees worked under him. He also s aid that he had been issuing charge‑sheets and granting leave under the instruction of the supervisor under whom he was. R. W. 1 stated from the record that basic pay of the respondent was Rs. 1,113 and allowances Rs. 400.In cross‑examination he denied that salary statements of mechanics were prepared by the respondent. He added that such statements were prepared by the four charge hands working under the respondent and the respondent only signed them after checking them. R.W. 2 said that the respondent used to get work done by the workers working under him.

3. So far as documents Exhs. P. I to P. 2 are concerned, the respon dent stated that they were prepared by him. None of the R.Ws. stated that these documents were prepared by the respondent. Exhs. P. 3 to P. 5 appear to be extract or copies of the evidence book of material and wages. They are weekly and not daily. The respondents has not stated that they were prepared by him. They not only bear the signatures of the respondent but also of the accountant and supervisor. Exh. P. 6 is weekly capitulation of wages. Admittedly, such statements are prepared by the respondent but since they are not prepared daily but only weekly, they do not come within main duties, but this is the record of performance of main duties. Moreover, this does not appear to be routine work. Exhs. P. 7 to P. 10 are weekly statements of wages of the department. Firstly, the respondent did not particularly state that they are prepared by him nor they bear his signatures and secondly they are not prepared, daily but once a week. Apart from it this is not a routine or clerical work. Moreover, this kind of work too does not form part of the main duties. They are ancilliary to the main duties. Exhs. P. 11 to P. 16 are overtime muster rolls. They in reality is one document. In the end appear the signatures of some other person who prepared it. It appears that the respondent signed them in token of checking the entries. This weekly statement, therefore, was not prepared by the respondent. This too does not appear to be a routine work. Exhs. P. 12 to P. 14 are also weekly statements of overtime of the person exempted from work. About these documents too the respondent did not assert that he had perpared them. Besides his signatures the signatures of other authorities also appear so it cannot be said that he prepared them. Exhs. P. 17 to P. 28 are the record of calculation of the weekly wages of the workers working under the respondent. He signed them as the scribe and the workers concerned signed them in token of accepting their correctness. Firstly, the respon dent did not say that these documents are in his handwriting. Secondly, this does not amount to merely clerical work. Making of calculations is not the work of a clerk. The learned lower Court did not scrutinize the abovementioned documents and thus fell in error in holding the respon dent as covered by the definition of workman,

4. So far as the question of preparation of samples is concerned, this kind of work done by the respondent is not sufficient to bring him within the definition of workman as defined in section 2 (i) of the Standing Order Ordinance, 1968. For every pair of shoes samples are not prepared. New sample is prepared once and on that pattern thousands pairs of shoe of different sizes are prepared by the actual shoe‑makers. New samples are not designed daily. Rather samples designed once continue for several months. So this kind of act is a casual duty and not daily duty. Apart from it, this is not a routine duty. It rather needs initiative, special talents and extraordinary skill. Only inventive brains can do so. The respondent admitted that he had been allowing leave and charge -sheeting the workers. This shows that he had supervisory powers. However, Exhs. R. I to R. 5 are not relevant although the respondent has admitted his signatures on them. In reality they do not bear his signatures. They actually bear the signatures of some other Foreman and through inadvertantly have been produced in this case. But since the respon dent admits that he had been granting leave and issuing charge‑sheets, he is out of the pale of workman. I have held in 1983 P L C 365 and 1964 P L C 1301 that Foreman of Bata Pakistan Limited are not workmen. So has been held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1971 P L C 1. I. Therefore, I hold that the respondent is not covered by the definition of workman giver in section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 or section 2 (i) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.

5. As a result, the appeal of the appellant is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed. As the very grievance petition of the respondent stands dismissed and the order of dismissal revived, no question of allowing back benefits arises. The appeal of the respondent, therefore, 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.