Find a Lawyer

Appeal No.FD‑335 of 1985, decided on 27th January, 1986.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑

‑‑‑S. 2 (i)‑‑Workman‑‑Line Jobber in Textile Mills looking after work of workers on looms and responsible for production‑‑Removal of any defect in machine occasionally when Fitters felt difficulty, held, would not bring such Line Jobber within definition of "workman".

Abdul Majid for Appellant.

Mian Abdul Latif for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 26th January, 1986.

The appeal captioned above challenges the correctness of the decision, dated 30‑4‑1985 passed by learned Court No.5, Faisalabad whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.

2. The allegation made against the appellant was that when Mr. Muhammad Saleem Assistant Weaving Master told the appellant that the thread of Bobbins had been wrongly installed and were broken, he lost his temper and attacked and beat him and abused him. Mr. Muhammad Saleem and three other witnesses supported the charge whereas the appellant and his defence witnesses admitting the incident put it forward in a different manner stating that Mr. Muhammad Saleem had called the appellant "Begairat". They had stated that the appellant had neither abused nor beaten Mr. Muhammad Saleem. Both the parties have suppressed the real story of the incident. It appears that Mr. Muhammad Saleem used provoking words in favour of the appellant, which infuriated him as a result of which he had attacked him and beaten him. Since Muhammad Saleem had acted in objectionable manner which does not be fit a boss he could have expected the same in retaliation what the appellant did. So Mr. Muhammad Saleem was responsible for the whole trouble.

3. However, the finding of the learned lower Court on the point of workman appears to be correct. The evidence on the record does not show that the appellant had to be manual work. He had supervisory powers as is apparent from his own statement. Since his monthly emolument are not given, therefore, in spite of the fact that his duties were supervisory, he is not ousted from the definition of workman given in section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance but he is not covered by the definition given in section 2 (i) of the Standing orders Ordinance inasmuch as he had supervisory powers and had not work to do with his own hands. He was a Line Jobber. He stated that he was responsible for the production that in his line there were 98 looms run by 7 Weavers. No doubt he said that whenever any machine went out of order he used to repair it but since he said but the Line Fitter used to do the work of overhauling it is incorrect that he had to repair the machine himself. Line Fitter who could do overhauling was competent to effect repairs. If occasionally when any Line Fitter felt it difficult to remove the defect and he appellant had to work himself, that duty being casual would not bring him within the definition of workman. He admitted that it was the duty of the Mechanic to repair the looms. He also admitted that there are joint Beem Piecers in the Khatta and that it was his duty to look after their work and that he used to control the Khatta and the production. The only evidence which the appellant gave in respect of his duties stand controverted by the evidence of R.W.2, Ghulam Sarwar Weaving Master He stated that main duty of the Line Jobber was to look after, the work of the workers working on the looms, and that he was responsible for the production. He further stated that if any defect develops in the looms the same was not removed by the Line Jobber and that separate staff has meant for that. He lastly stated that the Line Jobber has not to work on the looms himself. No doubt in cross‑examination R.W.2 said that he had not seen the appellant working in the Mills but in his examination‑in‑chief he did not say that the duties described by him were of the appellant. He has given evidence regarding the duties of a Line Jobber. So the learned lower Court has rightly found that the appellant is not covered by the definition of workman given in the Standing Orders Ordinance. This being so the appellant could not seek his redress from the Labour Court. His petition, therefore, was rightly dismissed.

4. As a result of the observations made above I do not find any force in the appeal‑ and dismiss it.

A.E.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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