1992PLC317 (PLP)

(4) Will detail M.T. Drivers/Operators to clean and carry out the daily inspection of the vehicles before these are booked out for duty. (5) Will receive requisitions and provide ground-handling service to various airlines as per their request and detail the vehicles/equipment and men for the scheduled aircraft one hour before the estimated arrival of the aircraft. (6) Will detail appropriate and qualified M.T. Drivers/Operators on the vehicles/equipment being scheduled for the duty. (7) Will maintain the daily attendance register of his men and mark the absentees or raise separate form for the latecomers as applicable. (8) ........ (9) Will record and report all incidents/occurrences or accidents causing any damage to equipment or injuries to personnel. (10) Will ensure that all the equipments/vehicles detailed for duty are' booked out before proceeding on duty and booked in after completion of duty in the register maintained for this purpose. (11) ........ (12) ....... (13) Will recommend leave for the personnel of his shift and allow short leave in emergency. (14) Will recommend/report on the working and performance of men in his shift for remuneration and promotion."

9. The other document mentions the functional responsibilities. The first paragraph is numbered `A' to `K'. Out of them, `A' 'B', `D' and `F might as well be reproduced:-- (A) You will ensure that your subordinate workers/employees remain at work assigned to them by you and that they do not leave their places of duties without obtaining permission from you; (B) You will exercise full control over the attendance and good time keeping of your subordinate workers/employees. (C) ........ (D) You Will administer discipline among your subordinate workers/employees and will ensure compliance of rules and regulations, you will be fully responsible for the maintenance of effective discipline, observance of rules and conduct among your subordinate workers/employees. (E) ........ (F) You will constantly review and evaluate the quality and quantity of the work performed by your subordinate workers/employees.

10. The second paragraph was that "the above functional requirements are basic, primary; fundamental and essential to your position as a whole and to your classification as a member of the management group." He was asked to accept the functional responsibilities and that was duly, done by him as directed. The. document was duly signed.

11. It was stated by Mr. Khadim Hussain that at the time of the termination of his services, he was getting a pay of Rs.3,000 per month. It was further contended that the designation of the officer or pay was of no consequence at all; the main consideration under the provisions of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (S'4nding Orders) Ordinance, 1968; is to find out as to what was the nature of the work being done by the person aggrieved. He sought support from a decision of this Tribunal in the case of Nafeesul Hussain Siddiqui v. Messrs Shaheen Airport Services reported in 1989PLC76.

12. In that case the respondents before me were a party to the judgment where it was found that the Ramp Coordinator was a workman and the question as to how much pay he was getting was of no consequence: It is, however, to be seen that in that case, the appellant had detailed out his duties and the Tribunal found that the evidence had gone unrebutted. There was no cross-examination of the appellant either in regard to the nature of his duties as clearly to be found in the aforesaid decision. He used to guide other technicians to operate the equipment by physical operation and it was admitted by the witness of the respondents that the Ramp Coordinator fixed the pin in the Towing Bar and wore the uniform at the time of work at the Aircraft. Besides, he used to do overtime and got uniform rest of overtime.

13. The instant case happens to be clearly distinguishable as the nature of work mentioned was of a supervisory nature and if anything at all was to be done manually it was incidental to the job, which can happen even with the incumbent of any superior most post as well. As held in the case of Ganga. R. Madhani v. Standard Bank Ltd. and others reported in 1985 SCMR 1511 from Lahore High Court, "the true test, therefore, is to look to the direct, immediate and the substantial part of the work for which he is employed and not the sundry duties incidentally performed by him and the true answer to this question will therefore, depend upon the proved facts in each case." Reference may also be made to the case of Zubair Ahmad v. Sindh Labour Appellate. Tribunal, Karachi and another reported in 1985 SCMR 1511; where it was held that only the workman performing manual or clerical work whether the same is `skilled' or `unskilled' could be considered to be a workman within the meaning of the word `workman' as defined under section 2(1) of the Ordinance.

14. If the appellant was not a workman and he was so found by the learned Presiding Officer, a conclusion with which I agree, there was no B question of his being served with the show-cause notice under Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The letter sent was just to apprise the appellant that his association with the respondents organization did no credit, but, on 4he other hand had brought bad name to it. It was also to show that the services were terminated not in a huff or for any ulterior motives. He was paid a month's salary and was also invited to collect all his dues that may be outstanding which was duly done. So nothing turns on that.

15. I might as well mention that it was submitted by Mr. M. Yaqoob, the learned Representative for the respondents that the grievance petition did not lie because the respondents' concern was a wing of Air Force. He has cited some authorities in support of this contention viz., (1) National Radio and Telecommunication Corporation Employees' and Workers' Union, Haripur v. Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 3 others, reported in 1990 PLC 218; (2) United Builders and Associates v. Presiding Officer, Punjab. Labour Court No. 1, Lahore and others reported in 1976 PLC 855; (3) Canteen Stores Department Employees Welfare Union, Karachi v. Canteen Stores Department and others reported in 1983 SCMR 1101 and (4) Rehmat Gill and others v. Quetta Cantonment Board reported in PLD 1983 SC 133.

16. All these cases show that the Institutions in question, were closely connected with the main activities of Defence Services. Even in the Canteen Stores' case, it was pointed out that the purpose of this organization was to supply standard goods to the Armed Forces. Obviously the defence personnel had to be maintained in good shape. As against this, admittedly, the respondent is an organization to look after the welfare of the children, the widows and the family members of the Armed Forces in need of assistance. It has nothing to do whatsoever with the Defence preparedness or the activities of the Defence Personnel. The fact that it is headed by the Chief of the Air staff or has top brass on its Board of Directors means only this such that its affairs are it safe hands and nothing beyond this. This fact by itself would not be sufficient to take away the redressal of the grievance against the organisation out of the purview of the Standing Orders Ordinance. I am clearly of the, opinion that if any cause of action accrues to a workman of the Organization then the grievance petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 would certainly lies.

17. There was -also a contention that the grievance petition was incompetent as the organization was -'Charitable Institution and there is no concept of profit involved at all. It was duly registered under the Charitable Endowments Act. The Government had also exempted it from the levy of the income-tax as borne out from the record. As it is not necessary in the circumstances of the case and also as in a case referred to earlier, this submission had not prevailed, it is not necessary to advert to the slime.

18. For the reasons given earlier I will uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2002/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.