1981 PLP 625 (PLC(CS))

(3) To maintain upto date records of all production in his shift and prepare and submit production reports as required by the Management. (4) To ensure that production and other allied procedures are properly followed in the sections under his charge. (5) To ensure that work in the factory is carried out according to health and safety procedures/standards laid down by the Management. (6) To ensure that routine and periodic maintenance of the machines and equipment in the sections in his charge is carried out regularly. (7) To be responsible for discipline in the section in his charge. (8) To ensure observance of quality control procedures in the manufacturing process carried out in the sections in his charge. (9) To record idle time and reasons thereof of the machines in all the sections in his charge. (10) To carry out all other miscellaneous and allied work in the factory as instructed from time to time by the Management. (11) To carry out any other duties assigned by the Management. To supervise and exercise control over all permanent or temporary man in the factory in his shift and any other section which may be put under his charge. To sanction/recommend leave to men under his control according to Rules/Policy laid down by the Management. To transfer or recommend transfer of men under his control as and when required. Plant Engineer and A.P.O. are available for consultation. This job description reflects the general details considered necessary for describing the principal functions of the job identified and shall not be construed as a detailed description of all work requirement that may be inherent in the job. (Sd.) Col. S. S. Zaman Works Manager. I accept the above terms and conditions. (Sd.) Signature & 28th April, 1975."

4. A bare perusal of the above statement makes it clear that the appellant not only exercised wide supervisory control over all permanent and temporary men in the factory in his shift and also in any other section which may be put under his charge, but he had powers to sanction/recom mend leave to men under his charge, to charge‑sheet workmen under his control and also to transfer or recommend their transfer as and when required. Although the appellant in his evidence before the learned Labour Court asserted that he never issued any charge‑sheet to a worker nor transferred any workers, nor sanctioned leave to any workers, but from the 42 documents which were put to him in his cross‑examination, it is clear that the appellant had been granting leave to workers, recom mending their annual increments, asking for disciplinary action against them and recommending workmen either for promotion or for upgrada tion of their posts. Exhs. 3/H to 3/N are the leave applications sanc tioned by the appellant ; Exhs. 3/O to 3/P are the lists of workmen whose annual increments have been recommended by the appellant while Exhs. 3/Q and 3/T are the cases recommended by the appellant or promo tion upgradation of the posts. Reference may also be made to 2 other documents which undisputably establish that the appellant was perform ing supervisory duties and not manual or clerical duties. Exhs. 3/D is an application made by the appellant himself to the Works Manager on 19th September, 1975. In that application the appellant himself has stated that supervisors are part of the Management. The next important document is Exh. 3/F which is a memorandum from the Works Manager regarding the powers of Shift Supervisors. The said memorandum states that the shift supervisor is over‑all incharge of all factory during his shift and that all personnel including the security staff and laboratory personnel will come under his direct control and will take orders from him. On that memorandum, the appellant has recorded in his own hand that has no doubt about the duties of the Shift Supervisor.

5. Mr. Shahani sought to lay stress on the duties of the appellant specified at them 2, 3 and 9 of statement of duties of supervisor and argued that at least these duties are clerical in nature. No doubt, the performance of these duties involves some clerical work, but from this, it cannot be inferred that the duties themselves were clerical in nature. Merely because the performance of any function or duty involves the doing of some clerical work, it does not follow that the performance of those duties constitutes the performing of clerical work. A person can, only be deemed to be a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders, if he is employed to do manual or clerical work. Even the General Manager of the Company may some times have to perform duties and functions which involve the doing of clerical work. Thereby he does not become a workman employed to do manual or clerical work. The performance of any such clerical work is merely incidental to the main, function of the person concerned. What has, therefore, to be considered is what are the essential or the main functions of the person concerned. In the instant case, as shown, the main functions of the appellant are the performance of supervisory functions. No doubt, as contended by Mr. Shahani, the amount of Rs. 2,515.66 received by the appellant as his total wages for the 27 days of July, included, besides his basic wages, all his allowances, but nevertheless that amount was the carry‑home wages that the appellant received for doing work on 27 days. The learned Labour Court thus rightly took this amount into consideration while determining the question whether the appellant was a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders. I would, however, like to add a word of caution that the quantum of wages received by a person is not the determining or even the most important factor for deciding the issue whether a person is a workman for the purposes of Standing Orders. The determining factor is the nature of duties for which he was employed.

6. On the view that I have taken that the appellant is not a workman for the purposes of Standing Orders, his grievance petition'. against his dismissal is not maintainable, as has been pointed out by me in the case of Johnson & Johnson (Pak.) Ltd. v. Zubair Ahmad and another (1980 P L C 622).,

7. Since the grievance petition of the appellant, in my opinion, was not maintainable, it will serve no useful purpose in going into the merits of the case and examining the contention of Mr. Shahani that the enquiry was not fair or proper and that the Enquiry Officer's report is misleading.

8. For the reasons discussed by me above, I bad no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same. Appeal dismissed.