1995 PLP 474 (PLC)

2. It is the case of the appellants that they were employed as workmen in the respondents Bank, Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. (B.C.C.I.). They were performing the duties of Clerks or skilled workers in the Bank. The Bank terminated their services in violation of the Standing Orders. They accordingly filed their grievance petitions in the Labour Court.

3. The Labour Court recorded evidence and came to the conclusion that the applicants were not workmen and the termination of their services was not in violation of the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The applications for reinstatement were, accordingly, dismissed and against the said orders they have preferred these appeals.

4. I have heard Mr. M.M. Jeelani, Advocate and Mr. Faruq Abdul Ghani, Representative for the parties at length.

5. Mr. M.M. Jeellani has pointed out that the appellants were manual workers without any designation, serving in the Bank. He has referred me to a letter of transfer issued by the Personnel Department sighed by Mehboob Subhani addressed to Muhammad Hanif Suleman, Officer, Returns Department `that he had been assigned to Information Desk and he should report to Mr. M. Munir Saifee for further instructions'. Mr. Jeellani has argued that the appellants, though working in the Bank had no special designations and they performed manual duties.

6. It has, on the other hand, been argued by Mr. Faruq A. Ghani, on behalf of Habib Credit and Exchange Bank Ltd. successor of B.C.C.I., that the appellants were. all Officers drawing fat salaries and enjoying all the privileges of officials and they could not be considered as workers. The learned Representative has referred to the cross‑examination of Muhammad Hanif, appellant on page 69 of the Labour Court's record of his case. As the cross-examination throw sufficient light on the whole case regarding the status of the appellants I would reproduce this piece of evidence in this decision. Mr. Muhammad Hanif in his cross‑examination to Mr. Faruq Abdul Ghani has deposed as under: "I was working with the respondents in the capacity of an Officer. I was drawing salary of Rs.12,080 p.m. I produce power of attorney issued to me by the respondents as Exh. 3‑A. I was also getting Car Allowance, Entertainment Allowance and Servant's Salary from the respondents. I was also getting leave fare assistance. These allowances are not being paid to the Clerks and Peons of the Bank. It is correct that the Returns of the State Bank of Pakistan i.e. Exh. 3/P‑3 were being prepared by Mr. Nazeer A. Karawani, Raza Ali Nadir whereas the same were being typed by Zahid Shahzad. It is correct that the same were being checked by me before despatching the same to the State Bank of Pakistan. Again says that I used to myself prepare the Returns and singed them. I do not possess any documentary evidence to show that I used myself prepare the returns. Annexure R/3 to the Reply Statement was given by me to the Board of Trustees. The Trustees made the payment through cheque vide? Annexure R/4 to the Reply Statement. I see my Bank Statement and produce the same as Exh. 3/B. I have withdrawn my Provident Fund from my Account and not the Legal Dues. I see Exh. 3/B and say that the closing balance is Rs.73.98. I have received House and Car loan from the respondents amounting to about Rs.5,10,000 or so. I have given the figure of balance after deduction of loan for few years. I did not lodge any report against the forcible receipt of cheque of Provident Fund. I am jobless. It is incorrect that I have mentioned wrong facts in my affidavit and application:"

7. Thus, the appellant has admitted his position as an Officer of the Bank drawing salary of Rs.12,080 per month. He has admitted that he was not preparing the Returns himself but they were checked by him. He has admitted that he had received the Housing Loan and the Car Loan amounting to Rs.5,10,

000. The learned counsel has further pointed out that it is on record that the appellant had been provided a full furnished House by the Bank with an Air‑conditioner, Refrigerator and even a Washing Machine and a Car for conveyance. That the Returns prepared and typed by other employees and he as Officer only checked them. Mr. Faruq A. Ghani has rightly shown that when the appellant says that he is an officer of the Bank the burden is upon him to show that he is a worker within the meaning of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The appellant has admitted that he has no documentary evidence to show that he was doing any clerical work.

8. Mr. Faruq Abdul Ghani has stated that there were in all seven such appeals against the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and three of these appeals were already decided by my learned predecessor Agha Ali Hyder as Chairman of this Tribunal. I would here quote the observation of the learned Appellate Tribunal in this connection: "The appellant has not chosen to place even his appointment letter which could have thrown some light on the nature of his job. However, the record unmistakably makes out that he was a Senior Officer drawing a pay of Rs.15,

850. He had also to admit that he could not produce any documentary record to substantiate that he was working in a clerical position. The precious little that he has talked about himself in the statement can hardly pass muster. The burden was on' him and it cannot be said that he even tried to discharge the same. As against this the scrutiny of his duties as put on the record by Waheed Usman Sakrani, clearly indicates that his work did not involve any work of clerical or manual nature, but required application of mind and supervision of work done by others????he cannot be said to be a workman."

9. The learned counsel for the respondent‑Bank has pointed out that the remaining three appeals of Ghulam Sarwar, Muhammad Raza and Muhammad Zahid Ahmed are also exactly similar in nature. In those cases t also the learned Labour Court held that the appellants were not workmen or performing manual or clerical duties but they were officers of the Bank. Muhammad Raza was the officer in the Inspection Department, Muhammad Zahid Ahmed was Officer in the Engineering Department performing supervisory work and drawing a salary of Rs.12,275 per month. He was given Car Allowance, Entertainment Allowance a servant, Bank Furniture at his residence etc. which are only provided to Officers and Executives of the Bank. Appellant Ghulam Sarwar had also been provided funds for House, Car and furniture for the residence. He was officer in Credit Central Department performing supervisory work of his subordinates and drawing a salary of Rs.12,275 p.m. He was also given Car Allowance, Entertainment Allowance, Servant's Salary for his residence.

10. In view of the above discussions I find that the appellants in all these appeals were Officers of the Bank and not workers and their grievance applications were not maintainable. I, therefore, uphold the orders of the Labour Court in each case and dismiss these appeals. H.B.T./2437/Lb.S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeals dismissed.