Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. Kar.18 of 1984, decided on 15th July, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 2(xxviii) & 25‑A‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(1)‑ "Workman" requirement of‑‑Employee performing functions as Clerk and typist and other work on dictation of Managing Director, held, was 'workman'‑‑Termination letter stating that services of such employee were no longer required was not a reason in terms of legal requirement.

‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 12(3)‑‑Termination Order‑‑Such order not mentioning abolishing of post, held, was against provisions of S.O. 12 of Ordinance VI of 1968‑‑Order of termination was not lawful in view of employee being workman‑‑Appeal dismissed in circumstances and back benefits already deposited with Tribunal were ordered to be paid to employee.

S. Qamaruddin Hassan for Appellant.

Ali Amjad for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 15th July, 1985.

This appeal arises against the order of the Sind Labour Court No. II ,Karachi, dated 21‑1‑1984. The respondent was re‑instated in service with full back benefits by the Labour Court and this appeal is filed by the appellants managements.

2. Briefly the facts which are gathered from the record are that the respondent was a worker in the appellants‑factory since 1‑4‑1977. She was appointed as a Laboratory Assistant. She performed the job as a Laboratory Assistant, duties of which were enumerated in the appointment order Exh. 1‑A. The basic salary was shown to be Rs.300 and she was to perform duties as instructed from time to time. She was to be transferred from one shift to the other shift. She performed her duties to the satisfaction of the management on which she got increments and enhancements in the pay. One A.E. Marx was the Chairman of the Operating Committee who according to the allegations of the respondent behaved in an indecent manner and had tried to win her confidence with immoral way. He did not succeed and suddenly on 18‑5‑1983, her services were terminated mentioning the reasons that her services were not required. Accordingly, she gave a grievance notice on 2‑6‑1983 and her grievance was not redressed. She has further stated in the grievance petition that the termination of her services was illegal, unfair and unlawful.

3. The appellants in their reply statement before the Labour Court maintained that the grievance petition is without jurisdiction, on the ground that the respondent got no right guaranteed or secured under any law; secondly that the respondent was performing duties of Confidential Secretary to the Managing Director and was drawing salary more than Rs.1,000 and she could not be deemed as a worker under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The post has since long been abolished. The allegation of immoral behaviour of one A . E. Marx was denied. She accepted the amounts in final settlement of her full dues.

4. The respondent filed her affidavit in evidence alongwith Annexures A‑11 to A‑22'. On her behalf, Syed Murtaza Ali and Jalaluddin filed their affidavits and were cross‑examined.. On behalf of the appellants, the affidavit of A.E. Marx was filed alongwith the Annexures 'A‑1 to J'. Further the affidavit of A. Hussain, as a witness was filed and both were duly cross‑examined.

5. The arguments of the two Advocates, namely, Mr. S. Qamaruddin Hassan on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Ali Amjad on behalf of the respondent were heard.

6. The first question which was argued at length was whether she had the assignment of the duties of managerial and administrative in capacity of her promotion as Confidential Secretary to the Managing Director. Various documents were shown to me in this respect. She was appointed as a Laboratory Assistant to carry out the instructions and orders of the Managing Director and to type certain documents and as she worked satisfactorily, she was given increments and the document A/5 is very clear. I quote the wordings of the document A/5

"Dear Miss Mulkana: ,

In view of your additional responsibilities as Telex Operator, we are pleased to grant you an increase of Rs.50 in your basic salary as from 1st November, 1980. You will continue to work as typist as well as handle general matters as before.

(Sd.) I . U . Khan,

Managing Director."

Essentially, therefore, her work was to type and to operate the Telex. She as a Secretary dealt in confidential work, namely, confidential files were to be maintained by the respondent. I have perused various documents produced by the appellants. She performed the. job of the Secretary and carried out the orders of the Managing Director and nowhere it is proved that she performed the managerial or administrative or supervisory functions. Even, the functions performed by directing the drivers or checking the stationery bills was on the instructions of the Managing Director and suo motu she did nothing in the capacity of manager or supervisor. Although several increments were given to her but essentially she did typing and telex work and carried out the orders of the Managing Director. Even the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that she was essentially a Clerk and a Typist and dial other work on the dictation of the Managing Director. Hence, she was a workman according to the Standing Orders. This position could not be differed from.

7. She fully comes within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court as workman and the Standing Order 12 is got to be followed. In her termination letter., which was though in writing, yet the reason given that her services are no longer required, is not a reason. Although subsequently they had shown that they had abolished the post of Secretary or the Typist, yet it is a subsequent thought with the management. It has been deposed in the affidavit of A.E. Marx that the post of Personal Secretary was abolished. This appears to be an afterthought and this does not appear to be the fact in view of Annexure 'A‑8', wherein there is an advertisement in 'DAWN', dated 10‑6‑1983, that a female Personnel Secretary was required by the appellant- management. Therefore, the post was not abolished as stated by A.E. Marx. The advertisement as Exh. A‑8 is seen by me and this belies the affidavit of A.E. Marx. As the termination order does not mention the abolition of the post, it is against the provisions of Standing Order 12(3).

8. After having heard the arguments of the two learned counsel and after having read the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the order of termination is not lawful and that the respondent was a workman. I, therefore, maintain the order of the learned Labour Court and accordingly dismiss this appeal. The back benefits deposited by the appellants in this Tribunal be paid to the .respondent forthwith.

A. A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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