1981 PLP 946 (PLC(CS))

Choudhry Rashihd Ahmad for Appellant. Shafiq Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing : 4th February, 1981. The respondent, who was designated as Assistant Analyser, but was actually working as Food Inspector in the appellant‑Corporation at Pasroor Railway Station in the Punjab, was charge‑sheeted for (a) impro per inspection, (2) faulty analysis, and (3) accepting poor quality rice. His explanation to the charge‑sheet was not found satisfactory and a domestic enquiry was held against him. On the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, who found the charges established against the respondent, he was dismissed from service with effect from 20th April, 1979. The respondent challenged the orders of his dismissal before the learned 1st Labour Court which disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer that the charges against the respondent had been established and accordingly it set aside the orders of dismissal of the respondent and directed his reinstatement in service with full back benefits. Aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Labour Court, the appellant‑Corporation has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

2. The main point on which Choudhry Rashid Ahmad, the learned counsel for the appellant‑Corporation, has assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court is that the respondent does not fall within the definition of workman as contained in the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and hence, he is not entitled to file or maintain a grievance petition under clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25‑A, I. R. O. An employee would fall within the definition of a workman as contained in the Standing Orders only if he is employed to do manual or clerical work, whether skilled or unskilled. It has, therefore, to be seen whether the nature of duties required to be performed by the respondent were manual or clerical. so as to bring him within the definition of workman for the pur poses of the Standing Orders. As already pointed out though the respon dent was designated as Assistant Analyser, he was really working as Food Inspector. In paragraph 5 of his grievance petition as also in his grievance notice, the respondent himself has stated as follows :‑‑ "That the analysing is the job of Analyst of Punjab Government. The applicant was working as Food Inspector for the procurement of rice 78‑

79. In the case the analyser was of Punjab Government employee who analysed the same.

3. In his evidence before the learned Labour Court, the respondent has Oven details of the nature of the duties which were being performed by him and stated as follows :‑ "That my duties were to count gunny bags, weighment, stitching the gunny bags, etc. to arrange loading the gunny bags in the wagons and after counting them to prepare record and then to seal the wagon, to draw samples for Analyst, wagon, central incharge and for dealer. After getting the samples then put it in the cotton bags and seal them. To maintain record of despatch, checking of bills, calculations, to prepare daily report, weekly report, fort nightly and monthly to maintain daily diary, etc."

4. In his cross‑examination, he has given the main duties of the Assistant Analyser, which were to obtain samples and submit them to Government Analyser, to count gunny bags at platform and in wagons, to check the stitching etc. The respondent admitted in his cross‑examination that he was required to act according to the instructions for procurement of 1979‑80 crop rice from Punjab by wagons. Paragraph 7 of the said instruc tions provides for the inspection, check, weighment and sampling of the stock to be done jointly by the Food Inspector of the Rice Export Cor poration and the Representative of the Provincial Government. The said paragraph provides that the samples are to be drawn by the Food Ins pector from 5% of the bags at random. It also provides for spot analysis of rice by the Representatives of the appellant‑Corporation.

5. The main duties of the respondent at Pasroor station thus appear to have been to procure stock of the rice for the appellant‑Corporation in accordance with the aforesaid instructions. The said instructions lay down the limits of allowable refractions, the mode of inspection, sampling and spot analysis. It also provides for random‑Checking by the Food Inspector of the bags of rice procured. These duties, to my mind, do not involve manual or clerical work, but on the contrary, involve the exercise of discretion and initiative with the power to reject supplies which are no according to the specification. It was contended by Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, the learned counsel for the respondent, that as Assistant Analyser, the respondent should be deemed to be a workman for the proposes of the Standing Orders. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Mirza Hussain Akhtar v. Messrs Bayer Pharma Ltd., decided on 30th September, 1979, wherein it has been held that the main function of the appellant in that case, who was employed as an Analyst was to perform tests, which re quired physical work of a very skilled and high standard, and accordingly he is deemed to be a workman for the purposes of the Standing Order. The nature of duties of the respondent in the instant case, however, are wholly different from the duties required to be performed by the appellant in the case of Mirza Hussain Akhtar. It may be pointed out that the latter was employed as an Analyst in a pharmaceutical‑Company, while the respondent, in the instant case, was designated as an Assistant Analyser in the appellant‑Corporation, the main function whereof is to procure rice for export. Furthermore, as already pointed out, though the res pondent was designated as assistant Analyser, he was really performing the duties of Food Inspector as Asserted by him in his grievance petition and in his grievance notice. The decision in the case of Mirza Hussain 4khtar thus is distinguishable and does not apply to the instant case.

6. It was next submitted by Mr. Shafiq Qureshi that no appeal lies from a decision of a Labour Court given under clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25‑A, I. R. O. This issue has been considered at length by this Tribunal in the case of Syed Mujahid Hussain v. Pakistan Security Printing Corporation Ltd., decided on 22nd October, 1980. In that decision, I respectfully disagreed with the decisions of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab High Court in the cases of Syed Mukhtar Hussain and 2 others v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others (P L D 1979 Lah. 748), and Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Lahore v. Punjab Appellate Tribunal (P L D 1979 Lah. 415), but relying on 2 other judgments of the Lahore High, Court in the cases of Shahi Bottlers Ltd. v. Khushi Muhammad and others (1979 P L C 424) and Cotton Trading Corporation v. Rana Shabbir Ahmad (1981 P L C 984), held that appeal lies against a decision of a labour Court given under clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25‑A, I. R. O.

7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I am of the view that as the respondent does not fall within the definition of a workman as given in the Standing Orders, he was not entitled to file or maintain a grievance petition against the termination of his service under clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25‑A, I. R. O. I would accordingly set aside the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court and allow the appeal. The amount of back benefits deposited by the appellant corporation is ordered to be refunded to it. Appeal allowed.