Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. LHR‑46o of 1985, decided on 23rd September, 1985.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑
‑‑‑S.2 (i)‑‑Workman‑‑Manual work‑‑Travelling‑‑Not a manual work‑‑Manual work means work done by hands‑‑Salesman of Tea Company mainly responsible to promote sale, provided with van and van man to drive van and deliver tea to shops and customers‑‑Issuance of receipt of price received and sending reports about sale etc. ancillary to main duty of promoting sale and travelling to shops‑‑Held, not a workman.
Ch. Anwar Ali for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 18th September, 1985.
The decision, dated 14‑7‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed on the main ground that he was not covered by the definition of workman.
2. The appellant was a salesman. He was charge‑sheeted for handling the cash negligently, with the result that it was robbed while being taken by the appellant to the Bank for being deposited. After holding an inquiry he was dismissed from service.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the learned lower Court has erred in holding the appellant as a non‑workman by relying upon Supreme Court's rulings that are based upon a definition given in section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1968 and not in section 2(i) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The learned counsel has cited 1976 P L C 424. The point involved is not whether a salesman of Brooke Bond is or is not a workman. Previously, the definition of workman given in section 2(i) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was that a person doing manual labour was a workman. The law was amended and the word "Labour" was replaced by the word "work". No such question is involved in the present case. If the appellant does manual or clerical work, he will be a workman otherwise not. The duty of a salesman of Brooke Bond Tea is to promote the sale of the tea. This is in evidence that he has a vanman who driven the van which hands and delivers tea to the shopkeepers and other customers to whom goods are sold by the salesman. Issuing of receipts of price received is not the main duty but ancillary to the duty of promoting the sale and selling the goods. Sending of reports about sale or connected matter is also not the main duty. Since the appellant admitted that he had a vanman under him, his deposition that he used to take the tea packets to the customers become false. Van is provided for taking the goods and in the presence of van and the vanman no question of taking goods by the salesman arises. So far as P L D 1961 S C 403 is concerned, the learned counsel has argued that the ruling is based upon the previous definition of workman when the law was that a person doing manual labour was a workman. No doubt it is so, but according to the evidence the salesmen do not do even manual work. As mentioned above they accompany the vanmen who carry the goods on the van and goods are delivered by the vanmen under the instructions A of the salesman. No doubt, salesmen have to travel to the shops but travelling is not a manual work. Manual work is that which is done by hands. The learned lower Court has thus rightly held that the appellant is not covered by the definition of workman. No other point has been argued.
4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.
A.E.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer