Find a Lawyer

Petition No. 35 of 1981, decided on 24th May, 1981.

‑‑‑Ss. 2(xxviii)(e) & 10(1)‑‑"Workman"‑‑Bank employees of Gr‑I, Gr‑II & Gr‑III fall within definition of "Workman" as given in Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and at‑ such trade union of Bank employees was entitled to extend its membership to such officers.

Date of hearing: 24th May, 1981.

The 'Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore, has filed this application under section 10(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for the cancellation of a trade union known as Muslim Commercial Progressive Union. The only reason taken in the application is that the respondent trade union has extended its membership to the Officers GR‑I, Gr‑II and Gr‑III and as such, it has violated the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

2. The only question, needing determination in this case is whether the Officers Gr‑I, Gr‑II and Gr‑III are not workman and do not fall within the definition as given in section 2 of I.R.O. It has been the consistent view of this Court that such Officers are workers. However, the Registrar has placed reliance on an unreported decision of the Supreme Court, Civil Provision for Criminal Leave to Appeal No. K‑89 of 1975 Salah‑ud‑Din Mahmood v. Pakistan and 3 others. In this case, the petitioner was a Manager of the Bank. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court contend that he was not a workman, it was observed:‑

The definition of "workman" is clear, and by no stretch of imagination can it include the petitioner who to all intents and purposes is a Manager and has been found to be such. He falls within the definition of 'Employers under section 2 (viii)(b)(e) of the Ordinance, and is specifically ousted from the definition of "workman" under section 2 (xxviii) (e) thereunder. This view received support from the case of A. Malik v. The Punjab Labour Court P L D 1974 Lah. 319 and P L D 1973 Lah. 994, wherein it has been observed as follows:‑

In the Industrial Relations Ordinance XXIII of 1969, any person responsible for the management, supervision and control of the establishment has been excluded from the definition of a "worker" and "workman".

3. A Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court in Writ Petition No.365 of 1977, Allied Bank of Pakistan v. Muhammad Hussain Khan and 2 others, decided on 11‑4‑1979 did not apply the above authority to the case of an officer of the Bank. In this case, it was observed:‑

"It was necessary to show that a paid servant falls within the category of "Employer" who would be responsible only to the owner and should supervise and control the entire establishment; If any of the two qualifications are found wanting, such persons, will not fall within the definition of employer, but will have to be considered as a workman and he is to be shown to occupy a position of supervision or control of the entire establishment and not only a branch of department of the establishment and for such reasons could not be said to be covered by the definition of "employer" as stated in section 2(e) (iii) of the Standing Orders Ordinance. Therefore, we hold that the respondent was a "workman" and not within the definition of "employer" as it covers those, who employ workmen under a contract of employment, in an establishment as defined in clause (ix) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance."

4. In view of what has been said above, I hold that the Officers Gr‑I to Gr‑III of the Muslim Commercial Bank fall within the definition of workman as given in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and as such, the respondent trade union is entitled to extend its membership to such officers.

5. In the result, the application is dismissed in limine.

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.