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‑268 of 1985, decided on 21st January, 1986.
‑‑‑Retrenchment due to abolition of post‑‑Worker promoted from lower post‑‑Higher post abolished‑‑Lower post continuing‑‑Workers, in circumstances, held, to be reverted to lower post and not to be terminated.
(b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 2(i)‑‑"Workman"‑‑Checking and auditing‑‑Not a routine work but needs application of mind and some kind of initiative‑‑Assistant Audit Officer checking Settlement Forms and Bills‑‑Not a workman‑‑Merely recording endorsements of objection will not bring such person within pale of "Workman".
(c) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑
‑‑S. 2(i)-‑"Workman"‑‑Employee whether or not a workman‑ Determinative factor Nature of main duty performed by employee would be relevant factor‑‑Facilities and amenities being enjoyed, held, were not relevant.
Sami Hayat for Appellant.
Malik Muhammad Asghar for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 14th January, 1986.
The appeal captioned arises from the decision dated 4‑4‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.
2. Initially the respondent was recruited as a clerk. At the time of termination of his services, he was Assistant Audit Officer. The ground of termination of his services is the closure of whole audit department. The evidence about the closure of the Audit Department has not been rebutted by the respondent but the services of the respondent could not be terminated as he was not appointed directly on the post of the Assistant Audit Officer but was promoted to the said post. Exh.P.4' shows that on 6‑6‑1973 he was allowed annual increment as clerk Social Security. So instead of being terminated from service, he should have been reverted as Clerk Social Security. This is not the case of the appellant that the post of Clerk Social Security too does not exist.
3. However, the respondent fails on the ground that according to the duties performed by him as Assistant Audit Officer at the time of termination of his services, he was not covered by the definition of workman as given in section 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. He stated that his duty was to check workers settlement forms, fair price shop bill and sales, canteen bills, guesthouse bills. T.A., D.A. forms, overtime bills, leave wages and suppliers' bills. This is note‑worthy that he did not say that his duty was to prepare the above‑mentioned documents. Preparation of documents may amount to doing clerical work but checking of documents is not so. He too did not say that after checking, he used to write endorsements or objections. Even writing of endorsements or notes of objections does not bring one within the pale of workman because rewarding of such notes is not the main duty but auxiliary to the duty of checking. Notes are the result of checking. If checking is not the duty, no question of making any note whether the bills etc. are correct or wrong arises. Checking and auditing is not a routine work, but needs application of mind and brain and some kind of initiative. Holding of social security card is not relevant to the point. Only the duties are to be considered to determine the question of workman. Likewise facilities and amenities enjoyed by a C person are not relevant. The employer may allow many amenities meant for workers but this is not a deciding factor for the determination of the question of workman. If a clerk is allowed the facility of an officer, supervisor or a Manager, he would remain a clerk if the duties performed by him are clerical. Alternatively if an officer is deprived of certain benefits and amenities meant for an officer, he would nevertheless remain an officer and would not become a workman. Learned lower Court has wrongly held that checking of bills etc. is a clerical job. For auditing profound knowledge of rules and orders is indispensable, whereas for doing merely a clerical job, acquisition of such knowledge is not necessary. The learned lower Court thus wrongly held that auditing and checking of bills and other documents is a clerical job. The respondent, therefore, is not covered by the definition of workman given in section 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. As the respondent claimed the violation of provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, it was necessary for him to be covered by the definition of workman given in the said Ordinance.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed.
A. E.
Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer