Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑721 of 1984 ‑and LHR‑3 of 1985, decided on 10th March, 1984.

‑‑ S. 2 (xxviii)‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ ment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of (1968), S. 2 (i)‑"Work man"‑Foreman in Bata Shoe Company with basic pay of Rs. 1,142 supervising work of eight mechanics recommending their leave applications and also serving upon them show‑cause notices‑ Occasional repairing machines when mechanics felt difficulty and preparation of weekly or monthly salary statements of mechanics, held, would not make such Foreman a workman.

1983 P L C 365 and 1971 P L C 1 rel.

1977 P L C 580 distinguished.

M. S. Bokhari for Appellant

Ch. Riaz Ahmad for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 6th March, 1985.

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

2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent has been wrongly declared by the learned lower Court as a workman. The respondent admitted in cross‑examination that there were eight persons under him. He did not say what they used to do when be was repairing the machines himself. The evidence of R W‑1 is that the duty of the respondent was to supervise the working of the mechanics that ordinarily Foremen do not perform duties by hand, unless a mechanic is unable to remove the defects in which situation they guide the mechanics by doing the work themselves. RW‑1 admitted that the Foremen prepared salary statements of mechanics which usually are ten to twelve. R W‑2 gave the basic pay of the respondent as Rs. 1,142 and allowances as Rs. 466,32.

3. If Foremen do repairs of machines themselves then there is n need of employing mechanics. Since eight mechanics are under the res pondent, they have to do the work of repairing. Occasionally, the act of repairing the machines when the mechanics feel difficulty would not make the Foreman as a workman. Their main duty is to supervise the working of mechanics and to guide them when they feel difficulty. Salary statements of the mechanics are not prepared daily but weekly or monthly So this is

casual kind of work and is not sufficient to bring the Foreman within the pale of workman. So far as section 2(i) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is concerned, show‑cause notices like Exh R‑6 were being signed by the respondent. No doubt, the Manager's initials also appear but he only endorsed the show‑cause notice. Leave applications were also recommen ded by the respondent as admitted by him. These are the duties of super visor. Since his basic pay is Rs. 1,142, i.e. more than Rs. 800, so the res pondent stands ousted from the definition of workman. I have held in 1983 P L C 365 that Foremen of Bata Company are not workmen, and so has been held by the Supreme Court in 1971 P L C 1. Learned counsel for the respondent has cited 1977 P L C 580 but the same is distinguishable. The evidence in that case was that the Foreman was preparing cars with his own hands. The learned lower court has, therefore wrongly held that the respondent is a workman.

4. 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 direction of reinstate ment stands set aside, no question of allowing back benefits arises. So the appeal of the respondent is dismissed.

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.