1981 PLP 871 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑ S. 2 (i) and S. O. 12 (3)‑Jobber having duty to train workers and supervise work of workers besides signing production register and not involving any manual or clerical work skilled or unskilled‑Not a workman‑Such person, held, not entitled to maintain grievance petition before Labour Court against termination of service or dismissal‑‑‑Grievance petition ‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A. Rafiq Ahmad for Appellant. Date of hearing ; 21st September, 1980. The appellant, who claims that he was employed in the respondent Mills as a Jobber, submitted a grievance petition before the learned VIth Labour Court, on 9th January, 1980, claiming that on his return from medical leave on 9th December, 1979, the respondent mills refused to take him back on duty and illegally locked him out, despite the fact that he had produced medical certificate of his illness.

2. The learned Labour Court held that the appellant's grievance petition was not maintainable as the appellant was not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders. It may be pointed out that this Tribunal, in the case of Johnson & Johnson Ltd. v. Zubair Ahmad, decided on 10th October, 1979, had held that a person who had been dismissed, discharged or his services were otherwise terminated by the employer and who felt aggrieved by such dismissal, discharge or termina tion of services, could only file a grievance petition under the provision of clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25‑A, I. R. O. in other words, when a person is required to be a workman for the pur poses of the Standing Orders.

3. An examination of the evidence given by the appellant himself before the learned Labour Court makes it quite clear that the nature of his duties does not come within the purview of mannual or clerical work, skilled or unskilled, and consequently, the learned Labour Court rightly held that the appellant was not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders and hence, he was not entitled to file and maintain a grievance petition. In his evidence be has given the nature of his duties as follows :‑ "As jobber my duty was to train workers only. I used to sign regis ter of production only production by workers of a shift. I used to supervise the work of workers in a shift. I had brought my workers which were employed by respondent. I used to receive applications for leave of workers and after signing it used to send to respondent for sanction. It is not correct that I used to sanction leave but used to send applications for entry in relevant register. About 30 persons were working under me in a shift."

4. In view of the above statement of the appellant where he has admitted that he used to supervise the work of workers in a shift and that about 30 persons were working under him, it is not possible to agree with the contention of Mr. Rafiq Ahmad that the appellant is a workman en titled to maintain a grievance petition. I would accordingly concur in the view taken by the learned Labour Court and dismiss the appeal in limine. Appeal dismissed.