1995 PLP 724 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑S. 2(xxviii)‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(i)‑‑‑"Workman"‑‑ Determination of‑‑‑Status of employee was to be decided not on his designation or pay, but on point as to what duties he was actually performing on date of charge‑sheet issued to him‑‑‑Evidence on record had fully established that employee was performing his duties which were manual and clerical m nature‑‑‑Employee was holding cash transaction and was performing his duties as Cashier m Bank and majority of his duties were manual‑‑ Employee was being supervised by the Manager of Branch and he had no power of hire and fire‑‑‑Employee could not even recommend leave to the staff and he had no power of attorney from Bank‑‑‑Employee was hardly performing any duties of supervisory nature‑‑‑Labour Court, thus rightly concluded that employee was a "workman" on the basis of main duties that he had to perform. Partab Roy for Appellant. Salahuddin H. Ahmed for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th May, 1995. Respondent Abdul Jabbar Qureshi was a Head Cashier of the National Bank of Pakistan at Var Branch Thatta District. In the course of his service it was discovered that respondent Abdul Jabbar had misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,700 which had been paid by the customer in his account but was not deposited and mentioned in his Ledger. For this misconduct after a domestic enquiry under the Bank Rules the appellant was dismissed from service on 24‑7‑1980. The respondent then, after usual formalities, filed his grievance petition before the Labour Court under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. The Labour Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition was not maintainable because the respondent was an officer of the Bank and not a workman. Against this decision the respondent filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed reinstatement of Abdul Jabbar Qureshi. The Bank then filed Constitution petition before the High Court. It was held by the Division Bench of the High Court that the crucial issue in the matter was whether the respondent was an officer or a on this point. The regarding further employee is to be decided not on his designation or pay but on the point as to what duties he was actually performing on the date of charge‑sheet. In this case it had come in evidence that the respondent was performing his duties which were manual and clerical in nature. At the Var Branch, the entire staff consisted of the Manager, Head Cashier, another Cashier, two Guards and one peon. That the respondent was handling cash transaction and he was performing his duty as Cashier, the majority of the duties being manual. He was being supervised by the Manager. He had no power of hire and fire. He could not even recommend leave to the staff and he had no power of attorney from Bank. He was hardly performing any duties of supervisory nature because there were no subordinates to supervise. The learned Labour Court therefore rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent Head Cashier was a workman on the ground of the main duties that he had to perform.

2. But after having given this decision the Labour Court did not decide the grievance petition in the light of this decision but left the case undecided, whether the grievance petition was to be allowed or dismissed or whether any grievance under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. was available to the respondent apart from his status as workman. Since this issue is initially to be decided by the Labour Court and not by the Tribunal or the High Court, the case is remanded back to the Labour Court to record any further evidence if produced and decide whether his dismissal was in order and whether he can seek redress for re‑instatement under the I.R.O. Since the matter is very old, the Labour Court should give priority to the hearing of this case and finally decide it as soon possible. H.B.T/2486/Lb.S Order accordingly.