1993 PLP 890 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Production of documents‑‑‑Relevancy, determination of‑‑‑Where Court allowed production of certain documents but not all of them on ground that remaining documents were not relevant to case, such order of Court, held was correct‑‑‑Documents not allowed to be produced in evidence pertained to period before employee was charge‑sheeted and dismissed‑‑‑Duties performed by appellant at time, he was punished were relevant and material‑‑‑At such time employee working as Shift Incharge Watch and Ward and not doing clerical duties would not be covered by definition of workman. 1970 PLC 915; 1977 PLC 293 and 1977 SCMR 103 ref. (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss.2 (xxviii), 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑‑Appellate jurisdiction, exercise of ‑‑‑ Employee of establishment not covered by definition of `workman', held, would not be entitled to invoke jurisdiction of Labour Court against his dismissal ‑‑‑ Appeal against dismissal of grievance petition being devoid of merit was dismissed by Labour Appellate Tribunal: Nazir Ahmad Naz for Appellant. Malik Bashir Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th September, 1986. This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 30‑4‑1986 passed by the leaned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.

2. The only point argued before me is that the appellant has been wrongly adjudged by the learned lower Court as not workman. The appellant was Shift In charge Watch and Ward but the case of the appellant is that he was not performing the said duties and the duties entrusted to him were clerical. After the service of charge‑sheet the appellant was transferred to some other post where admittedly he was performing the duties of Shift Incharge Watch and Ward. The learned representative of the appellant has argued that since at the time the appellant was charge‑sheeted he was performing clerical duties, it is immaterial that at the time of dismissal he was working as Shift Incharge Watch and Ward. He also says that cause of action arose to the appellant when he was charge‑sheeted and not when he was dismissed from service. On the face of it the argument is devoid of force. Cause of grievance arise to a workman when some punishment is awarded and not when his explanation is called or show‑cause notice is given. It has been argued that the appellant had made report Exh. P‑9, dated 12‑6‑1983 that certain record had been stolen and that he had asked for the summoning of record to show that he was performing clerical duties. The learned lower Court allowed the production of certain documents but not all of them on the ground that the remaining were not relevant to the case. The said order was correct, inasmuch as the documents which not allowed to be produced in evidence pertained to the period before the appellant was charge‑sheeted and dismissed. The duties performed by the appellant at the time he was punished were relevant and material and as at that time he was working as Shift Incharge Watch and Ward and was not doing clerical duties, he was not covered by the definition of workman. There is sample authorities on the point that members of the security staff are not covered by the definition of workman given in section 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The appellant was not only a member of the security staff but was shift incharge watch and ward. The duties of Shift Incharge are supervisory. No doubt, it has not been pointed out by the respondent as to what was the pay of the appellant at the time he was removed from service, therefore, it cannot be said that exception (b) to section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is attracted but since admittedly the appellant belongs to the Watch and Ward Establishment, at the time of removal from service, he was not a workman. Needless to say that duties of watch and ward are not manual. Their duties are to patrol and make round of the premises to protect the property of the employer but they have no manual duties to perform. The manual work is that which is done by hands. Gatemen of the factories have to perform manual duties by opening and closing the gates and by effecting search of the persons and vehicles coming in and going out of the factory. Such duties being manual, the gate‑keepers are covered by the definition of workman but members of the security staff have to perform watch and ward duties as mentioned above which are not manual and thus they are not covered by the definition of workman. Learned representative has cited certain rulings such as 1970 PLC 915, 1977 PLC 293, 1977 SCMR 103, 1984 PLC 407, 1541 and 509 but they are not relevant to the point. The learned lower Court thus rightly held that the appellant was not a workman.

3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.A./178/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.