1988 PLP 858 (PLC(CS))

Appellants in person. S. Oamaruddin Hussain for Respondent. DECISION These are two separate appeals filed by each appellant, against impugned orders, both dated 1‑11‑1983, passed by the Surd Labour Court No.11, Karachi, who had dismissed both the grievance petitions of the appellants under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. As a common point of law is involved in both these appeals, therefore, I would decide them by this single decision.

2. The appellants claimed to be permanent employees of the respondent factory working as driver‑cum‑general workers. They claimed that besides performing the duties as drivers, they were required to perform other duties such as loading and unloading of goods from the vehicles, repairing the vehicles, cleaning the vehicles, purchasing the material from market and picking up and dropping the factory staff. Further, the claim of the appellants was that the respondent factory was a non‑seasonal factory employing more than 50 workers, therefore, the provisions of Factories Act were applicable to them and that they were required to perform duty for 12 hours a day and for 72 hours in a week, but, no overtime payment was allowed which was a guaranteed and secured right of them under section 47 of the Factories Act, as they worked for more than 48 hours in a week. They claimed that as their grievance notices were un satisfactorily replied by the respondent factory, therefore, they had submitted their grievance petitions under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969 before the learned Labour Court.

3. The respondent factory resisted the petitions on the grounds that a settlement, dated 10‑8‑1982 was arrived at between the management and the workers union to be remained in force till 31‑3‑1984 and as per clauses (l), (2) and (3) of it, no demand whatsoever, involving financial implication directly or indirectly was to be raised and that the appellants were simply working as drivers and were not included within the definition of workers, as given in .section 2(h) of the Factories Act, therefore, they were not entitled to claim overtime. It was further claimed by the respondent factory that as the appellants were employed as drivers since 11‑8‑1980 and their duty hours were fixed 12 hours per day, therefore, for performance of these duties, they were being paid a Special Allowance of Rs. 105.00 per month each and that besides the duties of drivers, they were not performing any other duty as had been claimed by them. The respondent factory claimed that as the appellants were not entitled to claim payment of overtime under section 47 of the Factories Act, therefore, their applications under section : c A, I.R.O. 1969 were not legally maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

4. Only the appellants had filed their respective; affidavits‑in‑evidence and also an affidavit‑in‑evidence of their sole witness, Sher Muhammad, the Joint Secretary of the Kohinoor Battery Mazdoor Union. None of them were cross examined by the respondent factory. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondent factory, except the fact that they had filed photostat copies of affidavit‑in‑evidence and cross‑examination of Factory Manager, Khalid Shari in another Case No.3 of 1981, alongwith the reply statements in the present cases. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned orders, hence, the present appeals.

5. I have heard Mr. S. Oamaruddin Hassan, the learned Advocate for the respondent factory. While, on the other hand, both the appellants are present in person and none is present on their behalf. However, I have carefully perused the record and proceedings of both the cases, impugned orders and also the memo of appeals. It is contended by the appellants in their appeals that the learned Labour Court was incorrect in holding the appellants 'not workmen' under the Factories Act, that they had no guaranteed light under the Factories Act 1934 or Shops and Establishments Ordinance, that the appellants had no connection with the manufacturing process or premises of manufacturing process. It was further contended by the appellants that the learned Labour Court has failed to consider the facts that they were general workers and were promoted as drivers‑cum -general workem and their working hours were increased to 12 hours per day; that the loading and unloading of goods was also done by them and the goods were connected with the manufacturing process; that the repairing work of the vehicles, cleaning of vehicles and purchasing material from market was also connected with the manufacturing process; that the factory staff also used to be picked and dropped by them as well as they used to take the injured workers to the hospital that prior to their promotion as drivers their working hours were 8 hours per day and overtime. at double the rate was being paid if they was required to work beyond the period of 48 hours a week and once a benefit was allowed could not be withdrawn later on; that the Labour Laws are beneficial Laws and these must be interpreted in favour of working class; that it was universal right that the maximum working hours were to be fixed 8 hours per day and beyond these hours, overtime at double the rate must be paid to the concerned worker; that neither the appellants nor their witnesses were cross examined so much so no evidence was led on behalf of the respondent factory, therefore, the version of the appellants was unchallenged and unrebutted; and that the evidence of the respondent factory in another case cannot be treated as evidence in the present cases. I see no force in any of the above pleadings of the appellants.

6. On the other hand, Mr. S. Qamaruddin Hassan, the learned Advocate for the respondent factory has fully supported the impugned orders and reiterated that in view of the settled law, persons who arc performing the duties solely as Drivers, Chowkidars and Malis etc., without performing any other duties which involve them in any manufacturing process or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process, or any other kind of work whatsoever, incidental to or connected with the subject of the manufacturing process do not come within the definition of workers as defined in, section 2(h) of the Factories Act. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the cases reported in PLD 1958 SC 153; 1977 PLC 590 and 1975 PLC

747. In view of these factual and legal aspects of these cases, I find nothing wrong with the impugned orders which arc well reasoned and, therefore, they must be maintained.

7. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and would maintain the same. The present two appeals are accordingly dismissed. A.E/1138/Lb. S Appeals dismissed.