1976 PLP 470 (PLC)

Azizur Rahman v. Tanlor Labour Court No. VIII P L J 1973 Tr. C (Lab.) 49 eel. Rana Sakhawat Ali for Appellant. Ch. Mukhtar Ahmad for Respondent. This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 26-6-1973, passed by Junior Labour Court No. 2, Lyallpur, by which respondent has b-en re-instated with all the benefits for the intervening period of his date of dismissal and date of Court's order, Brief facts of this case are that the respondent joined service of the appellant as Assistant Stores Officer on 25-8-1971. On 28-5-1972, he was made Assistant Import Officer. Mr. Nazar Hussain, Administrative Officer of the appellant, terminated his services on 15-3-1973. His post was declared as surplus. Contention of the respondent before the Junior Labour Court was that "at the first place this post of Assistant Import Officer could not be declared surplus as jute is always imported from outside of the country and so this import section is absolutely necessary and in fact this post is in existence even now. If at al] this post was to be abolished then I being a permanent servant could be transferred to my original section as Assistant Stores Officer. The Management has illegally taken the protection of S. O. 12 and in my termination letter has not given any reason for my termination. He further contended, "as I was appointed by the director my services could never be terminated by the Administrative Officer. The Director was the only authority to employ me or to terminate my services". Manage ment before the Junior Labour Court as well as before me has vehemently stressed on the point that respondent does not fall under the definition of a workman, therefore, the Management was well within their rights to terminate his services. And respondent could work only during the pleasure of the Management. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred different decisions on this point. Following ones deserve mention :- (1) 1970 P L C 139, this case was decided on 18th November, 1969 much before the new amendment in the labour laws and this is regarding the Sales Manager who has been declared not a workman under the (Standing Orders) Ordinance. His, duties are quite different to the duties of Assistant import Officer or Assistant Stores Officer, so I do see this judgment is of any help to the appellant. (2) There is another ruling cited as 1970 P L C 727 in which a supervisor is held not to be a workman. I am afraid that this also cannot help the appellant, as this is a case under East Pakistan Employment of Labour Standing Orders Act, 1965 in which definition of a workman might be different from the definition of West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance 1968. Another citation 1970 P L C 733 is again under East Pakistan Employment of Labour Standing Orders Act of 1965. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to a ruling P L J 1973 Tr. C (Lab )

49. This ruling is regarding termination of services of a Purchase Assistant of Pakistan Progressive Cement Industries Limited. He has been held a workman. For the reason he has no authority to employ or to terminate the services of his juniors. So is the case of the present respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that respondent had the authority to grant leave to his juniors. I think this is immaterial. I have gone through the impugned order and for the above discussion see no reason to interfere with the order of Junior Labour Court and it is therefore upheld and appeal is dismissed.