1982 PLP 658 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 30th November, 1981. The appellant, who was employed as Weaver Supervisor in the res pondent‑Company, was dismissed from service, vide order, dated 27th August 1977, on the ground of wilfully absenting himself from his duties in conjunction with other Supervisors with effect from 23rd July 1977. The appellant challenged the orders of termination of his services through a grievance petition filed before the learned Vth Labour Court which petition was transferred for disposal to the learned 1st Labour Court. The latter Court, by its decision, given on 2nd November 1979 directed the re‑instatement in service of the appellant but at the same time gave an option to the respondent‑Company to hold a fresh enquiry against the appellant in accordance with law. Both the parties filed appeals against said decision. In the meanwhile, the respondent‑Company held a fresh enquiry against the appellant and on the basis of that 'enquiry dismissed the appellant from service with from 18th December 1979. In view of this fresh dismiss order, the appeals preferred against the decision of the learned Labour Court, dated 2nd November, 1979, became infru ctuous and the appeal of the respondent‑Company was withdrawn while the appeal of the appellant was dismissed. The appellant challenged the fresh orders of dismissal, dated 18th December, 1979, before the learned Vth Labour Court; which, by its decision given on 7th October, 1981, has dismissed t‑he appellant's grievance petition mainly on the ground that as be was not a workman for the purposes of the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) ordinance1968, his grievance petition was not maintainable. Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellant has come up in appeal to' this Tribunal. ,

2. It was strongly contended by Mr. Raja Shamsuzzaman, the learned counsel for the appellant, that appellant was a. workman employ ed to perform manual and clerical duties and hence his grievance counsel maintainable. In. support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon paragraph 3 of the appellant's affidavit file before the learned Labour Court, where he has asserted that he had been doing manual work and was a workman for all intents and purposes. It was, however, conceded by Mr. Raja Shamsuzzaman that this is a general and somewhat vague statement and no details of the nature of duties which he was employed to perform have been specified by the appellant. The cross‑examination of the appellant throws a greater light on the nature of duties and responsibilities which Aired upon the appellant. In his cross‑examination, the appellant hits admitted as follows:‑ "I was appointed Weaver Supervisor on 13th December, 1976. It is incorrect that 40 to 50 weavers used to work k in Weaving Section. The witness voluntarily states that the above said number of the weavers used to work in all the 3 shifts in Weaving Section. Only power looms were in the Weaving Section, which were used to be operated by the weavers. It is a fact that fitters used to maintain the looms but when they were unable to get the looms repaired we used to get it repaired. Except pro duction no other work was being done in the Weaving Section. The weavers and the fitters used to be the subordinates to the weaving supervisors. It is a fact that weaving supervisor is res ponsible for the discipline of the subordinates. The weaving super visors used to supervise the production and the maintenance in the Weaving Section."

3. In view of the admitted position that the appellant was employee as Weaving Supervisor, that a number of weavers and fitters were working under him that it was primarily the duty of the fitters to repair the loom and that the Weaving Supervisors were not only responsible for the discipline of their subordinates but were required to supervise the work of Weaving Section it is quite apparent that the appellant was not required to do any manual work. He thus, does not fall within the definition of workman as given in the Standing Orders.

4. It was next contended by Mr. Raja Shamsuzaman that in the first grievance petition on the basis of which the appellant was ordered to be re‑instated in service, it was not claimed by the respondent‑Company that the appellant was not a workman and hence it should be presumed that the respondent‑Company had accused in the claim of the appellant that he was a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders. I regret that I see no force in this contention. In the first place, the question whether a person is a workman is the very foundation for the entertaining and maintainability of a grievance petition under clause (3) of Standing Order 12, and hence this plea may be raised at any time. Of course the plea has to be examined with reference to the evidence on record. Furthermore, the appellant was undoubtedly re‑instated in service pur suant to the orders of the learned Ist Labour Court, dated 2nd November e 1979. Thereafter, as already pointed out, fresh proceedings were taken against the appellant and the fresh orders of dismissal, dated I8th December, 1979, were passed against him. This fresh order of dismissal was challenged through a fresh grievance petition filed before the learned Vth Labour Court on 23rd January, 1980. These being fresh proceedings it was open to the respondent‑Company to raise the plea that the appellant was not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders, though this plea may not have been taken by it in the earlier proceedings.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and accordingly dismiss the same in limine. Appeal dismissed.