Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑56 of 1985, decided on 23rd July, 1985.

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

‑‑‑S.O. 15(4)‑‑Multiple charges‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Accused charged for raising slogans, participating in a procession and blocking road for movement of van carrying management staff‑‑Enquiry Officer giving benefit of doubt about allegation of raising slogans and exonerating accused therefrom‑‑Dismissal order passed on basis of all charges notwithstanding findings of enquiry‑‑Taking out mere procession not amounting to misconduct‑‑No allegation of causing damage to property‑ Allegation of blocking road against company van established Dismissal order based upon all charges, in circumstances, held, not sustainable.

1981 P L C 984 rel.

‑‑‑S. 2(xxviii)‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(i)‑‑Workman‑‑Supervisor purchases‑‑Controlling a typist/clerk‑‑Salary more than Rs.800 p.m.‑ Main duty to get quotations by visiting market and comparing rates‑ Typing of statements casually done in absence of typist and going to market would not be a manual work‑‑Preparation of comparative statement was ancillary work‑‑Employer doing such ancillary work, held, was not a workman.

Shahid Hamid for Appellant.

Naeem Sultan Butt for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 15th July, 1985.

The decision dated 6‑1‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. The allegations for which the appellant was dismissed from service after being charge‑sheeted and holding an inquiry against him are that he participated in a procession in which he raised slogans and that he blocked the road and movement of the coach which was carrying the staff of the management. The Inquiry Officer gave the respondent benefit of doubt so far as the allegation of raising slogans is concerned since in the evidence it was not said what were the slogans; but found him guilty of participating in the procession and blocking the road to prevent the coaster carrying the members of the management. Even though the Inquiry Officer exonerated the respondent from the charge of raising slogans, yet the employer dismissed him on all the three charges. The allegation of participating in the procession did not amount to misconduct. Since the Inquiry Officer exonerated the respondent from the allegation of raising slogans, taking out procession did not amount to misconduct. There is no allegation of showing criminal force or breaking articles and causing damage to any property of the employer. Merely getting of the workers together did not constitute any offence. If the evidence had been that the slogans were against the management or the employer, of course taking out procession as well as raising of slogans would have amounted to misconduct. The slogans may be in favour of the management or the employer. The only allegation which remains is that the respondent blocked the road against the coaster that was carrying the members. The driver of the vehicle did not say that the respondent blocked the road. However, the members of the management sitting in the coaster proved this fact. Since only the allegation of blocking the road against the coaster was established whereas the employer dismissed the respondent on all the three charges, the punishment was not sustainable in view of the observation made in 1981 P L C 984.

3. The difficulty is that the respondent does not stand proved to be a workman. He was Supervisor Purchases and his pay was fixed initially as Rs.1,600 and he was getting Rs.1,850 at the time of dismissal. He had been recommending leave applications of R.Ws. 1 and 2 working under him and had also been recording their overtime claims. The overtime claims of R.W.1 are Exhs. P.21 to R.23 and that of R.W.2 are Exhs. R‑24 to R‑26. Leave applications recommended by the respondent are Exhs.R‑18 to R‑26. Obviously, the leave sanctioning and overtime allowing authority would not have allowed the same if they had not been recommended by the respondent. It is, therefore, manifest that R.Ws. 1 and 2 were working under the direct supervision of the respondent. This is true that the respondent had not written the confidential reports, nor could directly take action against them but such functions are not necessary for a supervisor. Such actions can be taken by the employer. For a supervisor it is sufficient that he has powers to control his subordinate. The respondent tried to show that he used to do certain clerical work from which Exhs.P.26 to P.34 were typed by the typist. Such a work was not the main duty of the respondent but it was ancillary to the main duty. Exhs. R‑26 to P‑36 Were comparative statements of the market rates. The main duty was to get quotations from the market and to compare them. For this purpose, the respondent had to go to the market. Needless to say going to the market is not manual work. The manual work is that which is done by the hands. The respondent had to inquire verbally about the rate of commodities of the articles to be purchased for the appellant. The, other duty was to compare the rates. This was the main duty. Preparation of comparative statements and getting them typed by the typist was ancillary to the, main duty. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that R.W.1 said that he was working in three sections and not only in purchase section, therefore, he could not be supervised by the respondent. The answer is quite clear that R.W.1 was answerable to the respondent for the working in the purchase section. This is true that the quotations were obtained from the market by the respondent as well as by the purchase clerk, but it would not show that by doing such a work, the respondent became a workman. I have already observed above that getting the quotations from the market was the main duty and preparation of the comparative statements was ancillary to the said duty. Much stress has been laid by the learned counsel for the respondent on Exh.R‑15 but it does not support the respondent so far as the question of workman is concerned. Rather this document shows that the respondent was exercising supervisory function over the purchase clerk. The respondent had vide this document asked his supervisor that one purchase clerk was not sufficient according to the work load. Request was made for the appointment of more workers. In order to justify his demand the respondent gave the details of the duties of the purchase clerk in items Nos.l to 4 of the document. The respondent had given his own duties in items Nos.B to S. So far as the compiling of quotations is concerned, this is not, as observed above, the main duty but ancillary to the main duty of getting quotations from the market. Preparation of comparative statements is also not the main duty. The comparative statements are about the rates. The main duty is to get quotations from the various firms and preparation of the statement is subservient to the said main duty. The comparative statements brought on the record are typed but the respondent did not say that he had himself typed them. Since he had a purchase clerk, the presumption is that they were typed by him. He has said that he prepared the draft which was typed by the typist. In item‑C it is mentioned that purchase order was prepared by the respondent. But no purchase order prepared by the respondent has been pointed out by the learned counsel on the record. Pursuing the deliveries from the suppliers in writing or on telephone mentioned in clause D does not amount to manual or clerical work and, therefore, is not relevant for this purpose. Apart from it no document is on the record to show that delivery of articles were pursued in writing by the respondent. Likewise arranging emergency purchases on telephone mentioned in caluse E does not amount to manual or clerical work. It is mentioned in clause F that local purchase was made from Sheikhupura. For making local purchase no manual or clerical work is done. Scrutiny of local purchase made by the local purchaser mentioned in clause G too does not involve any clerical or manual work. Likewise, negotiations to that effect about the rates in writing or on telephone mentioned in clause H does not involve any clerical or manual work. Apart from it no document has been pointed out to show that such a work was done by the respondent. Keeping liaison with the requisitions, stores and accounts mentioned in clause I does not amount to clerical or manual work. Arranging advance payment from business area mentioned in clause J goes against the respondent and does not amount to clerical or manual work. Scrutiny of goods received notes with the purchase orders and its despatch mentioned in clause K also does not amount to clerical or manual work. Clause L suggests that the work of filing was the duty of the respondent. But Exhs. R‑1 to R‑9 are to the contrary. They bear the orders of the respondent directing the purchase clerk to file the document. It is clear that filing of the document on the conclusion of the transactions was not by duty of respondent but he had to get this work done by the purchase clerk. Ensuring the despatch of rejected materials to the suppliers and arranging its replacement mentioned in clause M obviously does not amount to clerical work. He had only to ensure that the rejected materials had been despatched to the suppliers and arrangement for their replacement had been made. According to clause N, the respondent had to report daily with all the relevant documents to procurement manager for disposal and verdicts. On the record there is no document to show that such reports were prepared by the respondent himself. Since he had a typist, he could get the reports typed from him. Verifications of bills, octroi charges and arranging payments from site accounts mentioned in clause O do not require the doing of any clerical work. Issuing of telegrams, telexis and amendments to purchase order do not amount to any as clerical work as is not a work of routine. Apart from it there is no evidence that the telegrams were prepared by the respondent himself. So far as item Q is concerned the work is casual. The respondent had to do this work if the purchase clerk failed to do it. Dealing with the suppliers mentioned in clause R does not involve the doing of any manual or clerical work. This kind of work is done orally. In clause S it is mentioned that in the absence of the typist or whenever he is busy with other departments, typing work was done by the respondent. It is clear that typing work was not the duty of the respondent and he has not to do this regularly but in the absence of the typist. So, this was not the main duty. It is thus apparent from the above discussion that the little manual or clerical work which the respondent had to do was either casual or ancillary to his main duties and, therefore, did not bring him in the pale of the definition of 'workman' defined in section 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 or clause (b) of section 2(xxviii) of the I.R.0 1969. In view of the fact that the salary of the respondent was Rs.1,800 and that his main duty was supervisory and little clerical work done by him was not the main duty, he was not covered by section 2 (xxviii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and section 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and thus, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. The learned lower Court did not go into the details and thus, fell in error in holding the respondent as a workman.

4. As a result of the observation made above, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the dismissal order is revived and the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed.

A. E.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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