Find a Lawyer

"The question to be examined is whether manual or clerical work is incidental to the main work or a substantial part of it, so that, the fact a person employed in a supervisory capacity does some manual or clerical work as ancillary or incidental to such employment has been held not to bring him within the Ambit of the definition. The main features, the pith and substance of his employment must be manual or clerical before the definition is attracted."

Applying the above test, it has been held by the Supreme Court that a shift engineer does not fall within the definition of the term "workman". Reference has been made in this judgment to various cases including those from the English jurisdiction and two such cases which need to be mentioned in this respect are those of Hunt v. Great Northern Railway Company ((1891) 1 Q B D 601) and Bound v. Lawrence ((1892) 1 Q B D 226). The first is the care of a railway guard, and the quest-on arose, whether the work performed by him was manual. It was held that since his primary duty was to use his intelligence and not his hands, therefore, he was not engaged in manual labour. The duties of manual nature which he was occasionally called up on to perform were, therefore, held to be not enough to make him a person engaged in such work. Similar views were expressed in the second case referred to above which related to a Salesman. In The Workers of Bata shoe Company, Lahore v. Bata Shoe Company. Ltd. and another (1971 P L C 1), once again the question before the Supreme Court was, whether a foreman in a factory was a workman. The Supreme Court held that the mete fact that such person was doing something with his own hands by way of checking or testing work done by other workmen would not make his work manual within the meaning of the definition of the word "workman". In Rehmat Ali v. The Security Papers Ltd. and another (P L D 1982 Kar. 913) decided by a Division Bench of this Court, Ajmal Mian, J. (as he then was) while writing the judgment of the D. B. held :-

"It may be noticed that Chowkidars or Security Guards as a class are not excluded expressly by the definition of workman given in section 2(i) of the Ordinance quoted hereinabove. The question whether a Chowkidar or a Security Guard is covered by the definition of workman given in the Ordinance will depend on the nature of duties, as pointed out hereinabove."

It was held in that case that the words "any manual" and "work" used in section 2(i) of the Ordinance are susceptible to a very wide connota tion, and therefore, they would cover a person who performs any manual work while discharging his duty irrespective of the quantum of such manual work, provided he belonged to a labour class. In another case reported as Ganga R. Madhani v. Standard Bank Ltd. and another (1985 S C M R 1511), a similar question came to be discussed before the Supreme Court, the question being whether an accountant in a bank, holding a power of attorney from the bank, whose duties included passing of vouchers, cheques and bank drafts, supervision and checking of ledgers and supervision of discharge of bank advices and statements of accounts etc., was a workman within the definition of section 2(i) of the Ordinance. It was held that such employee was not a workman within the meaning of the definition. Another important case on the point is the case of Chairman, Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi v. General Secretary, Union Karkunane Brooke Bond (Pakistan), Rawalpindi (P L D 1969 Lab. 717). The question in that case was, whether a salesman who was incharge of a depot and was responsible for sale and distribution of work in his area and who travelled from place to place at the expense of the Company, and went on rounds in his area alongwith a vanman and distributed and sold tea to the shopkeekers, issued cash memos for the stock collected amounts, maintained accounts, etc., was a workman. It was held by the Lahore High Court as follows :-

"In short a salesman in this company is responsible for the sales and distribution of the tea in his area. No doubt in the process he has to go round mostly on cycle at the cost of the company but that is not the end in itself. It is merely an incidental part of those main and primary duties. For the manual work involved in carrying the stocks for distribution all over the area he has the services of the vanman under him and he is not there merely to push the van from shop to shop. The clerical work involved in the discharge of his responsibilities in preparing the cash memos; the small column-wise daily statement of sales and the weekly returns forms but a small part of his duties and are altogether consequential in nature. These do not in any way change the complexion of the basic work for which the salesman is employed by the company."

Another case decided by the Supreme Court on the point is the case of Shahzar Khan v. Sind Labour Court No. 4 Karachi and 2 others (1977 S C M R 103). In this case a Chowkidar who was also supervising three other Chowkidars and drawing a salary of Rs. 350 per month was held to be a workman. No doubt, the definition of the term "workman" which was taken into consideration was not the one in question, but the definition of "worker" or "workman" given in the I. R. O. However, reliance was placed on the case of Organization of Karachi Port Trust Workers v. Karachi Port Trust etc. (Civil Appeal No. K-6 of 1968) wherein on the basis of the definition of the word "workman" given in section 2(n) of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, it was held that the Chowkidars were workman. It may be pointed out that the definition of "workman" in the Industrial Disputes Ordinance and the Ordinance is the same. In another judgment recently given by the Full Bench of 'this Court in Zubair Ahmed v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and another (P L D 1985 Kar. 760), it has been held that before an action under section 25-A could be initiated by the applicant, he should be first required to prove by evidence that he was a workman. It was further held in that case that any person doing any skilled or unskilled work or any skilled or unskilled clerical or manual work would be covered by the definition of workman in the Ordinance.

7. The consensus of these authorities clearly in that the test for determination, whether a person is or is not a workman, wholly depend upon the nature of duties, which he has been employed to perform which must be of skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical nature. The basic question however, would be, whether the skilled, unskilled clerical of manual work performed by him forms a substantial part of his duties or it is incidental or ancillary to his main duties. Therefore, merely because a person per forms some duties of clerical or manual nature would not bring him within the purview of the definition, unless it is shown that such duties form a substantial part of his work. If this test is applied, then in our opinion, the petitioner clearly falls within the purview of the definition in question. The duties performed by him which include opening and closing of the p gates, physical search of the trucks, counting of bags, checking of the quality of rice, and conducting search of persons, etc,, clearly fall within the ambit of the definition of "workman".