Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. FD‑256 of 1984, decided on 11th March, 1985.
‑‑ S. 2 (xxviii) (b), West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(i) "Workman"‑Hire and fire powers necessary only for a Manager or officers higher than Manager‑Every Officer who is not a Manager may not necessarily be a workman‑Store Officer allegedly having clerks and peons under him and getting pay of Rs. 1,100‑No break‑up of amounts of basic pay and allowances indicated and no evidence as to nature of duties discussed‑Labour Court without recording findings as to nature of duties declaring such employee as workman on grounds that he had no powers of hire and fire‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for re‑decision after opportunity of evidence to parties.
M. S. Bakhari for Appellant.
Respondent in person.
Date of hearing : 4th March, 1985.
The decision dated 11th April, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The respondent was a Store Officer. The allegations for which he was dismissed from service were that certain items of the stores were found in excess and some were lying at the places other than the ones meant for their location. Treating the omission mentioned above as a misconduct the respondent was charge‑sheeted and after holding an inquiry was dismissed from service. The learned lower Court found that the allegations did not amount to misconduct. The respondent was declared as workman.
3. Before me the point of workman only has been argued. The learned lower Court has not discussed and scrutinised the evidence led by the parties on the point and has declared the respondent as workman simply for the reason that R. W. 2 said that the respondent had no powers, of hire and fire. The powers of hire and fire are necessary for a Manager or an officer higher than that. Every officer who is not a Manager may not necessarily be a workman. According to clause (b) of section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, officers employed in the capacity of supervisor getting wages in excess of Rs. 800 are ousted from the definition of workman. So far as the definition of workman given in section 2(i) of Standing Order Ordinance, 1968 is concerned, persons doing manual or clerical work are workmen but the learned lower Court has not considered the case with this point of view. It has been argued that the pay of the respondent was Rs. 1,100 and he had clerks and peons under him, so he is not a workman under section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Basic pay of the respondent was Rs. 660 at the time of his dismissal and there is no evidence what allowances if any he was getting. No break‑up of the total salary of Rs. 1,100 was given. So far as the definition given in section 2(i) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is concerned, the learned lower Court has not recorded any finding.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for redecision in the light of the observations made above. If the parties want to produce any further evidence on any point, they may produce the same before the learned lower Court.
A. E.
Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer