1984 PLP 465 (PLC)

‑‑ S. 2 (xxviii)‑"Workman"‑"Supervisor" ‑ Powers of hire and fire‑Not necessary for a Manager or supervisor‑Branch Manager of Insurance Company having a clerk, a typ1st, a Development Officer under him‑Could sanction their leave, charge‑sheet them and recom mend their cases‑‑Manifestly performing supervisory functions‑‑Pay Rs. 1,265 per mensem‑Not a workman. Syed Farooq Hussain Naqvi for Appellant. Date of hearing : 11th May, 1982. The appeal arises from the decision, dated 20th January, 1982 passed by the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement was dismissed.

2. The appellant was a Branch Manager, Pakistan General Insurance Company, Branch, Gujranwala. He was confirmed as Branch Manager on 1st September, 1973. His services were dispensed with on 1st September, 1980. Therefore, he brought a grievance petition after serving a grievance notice. The grievance petition of the appellant has been dismissed on the sole ground that he is not a workman. Admittedly there was no other officer above the appellant in the Insurance Company at Gujranwala, thus, he was the incharge. He has said that there was a Clerk (typ1st) and a peon under him, whose leave he could sanction. He said that he could not employ and terminate any employee. In cross‑examination he also said that he used to do management and his total emoluments were Rs. 1,265 per mensem. He, however, denied that he was supervisor. He admitted that lie was not preparing statements. One witness was examined on behalf of the respondent namely Allaud Din, who stated that the appel lant was Branch Manager and that under him were typ1st, Development Officer, agent and a clerk and that the management and control of Gujranwala Branch was under him. He also said that he could charge‑sheet his establishment and could recommend them.

3. Since there was no other officer over the appellant in Gujranwala Branch, he was the head there and was doing management of the branch. The learned counsel has said that the appellant was doing clerical work. This is not believable. If the appellant was doing clerical work, then what the clerk was doing. His main duty was supervision of the branch and his pay being Rs. 1,265 per mensem, obviously he comes within the excep tions (a) and (b) to the definition of workman given in section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Power of hire and fire is not necessary for a Manager or a person responsible for the supervision, inasmuch as such powers are needed for a person who is said to be an employer. The case of the respondent is not that the appellant was employer. Since he could sanction leave, charge‑sheet and recommend the cases of his subordi nates, manifestly he was a Manager and his duties were supervisory. The learned trial Judge rightly held that the appellant was not a workman and his petition was rightly dismissed. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine. A. E. Appeal dismissed.