1986 PLP 34 (PLC)

3. We have heard Mr. A.A. Sharif, the learned counsel for the petitioner, at length, and dismissed the petition in limine vide a short order, dated 15‑8‑1985.

4. The respondent No. 3 in her notice of grievance as well as in appeal in the Labour Court has urged that she was removed from service because she repelled amoral advances of the then Managing Director, Mr. A.R. Marx. Mr. A.R. Marx had filed a lengthy affidavit before the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal denying the allegations and also contending that the respondent No. 3 was not a worker but was doing managerial duties.

5. We need not to go into the allegations made by respondent No. 3 against Mr. A.R. Marx, because it is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that if it is held by this Court, that the respondent No. 3 is a worker, then the petitioners are out of Court. The learned Tribunal held:‑‑ "No reason for termination of service as required under Standing Order 1.2 was given to the petitioner and as such order was not proper." This point is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only question to be determined by this Court, is, whether the respondent: No. 3 was a worker within the meaning of Industrial Relations. Ordinance, 1969. It was contended before the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal that respondent No. 3 was performing duties of confidential Secretary to the Managing Director, and was drawing salary more than Rs.1,000 and, therefore, she could not be deemed to be worker under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The learned Appellate Tribunal held that:‑‑ "Respondent No. 3 was appointed as Laboratory Assistant to carry out instructions and orders of the Managing Director and type certain documents. As she worked satisfactorily, she was given increments." It is further observed:‑‑ "Her work was to type and operate the Telex. She, as a Secretary, dealt with the confidential work, namely, confidential files were to be maintained by her. She performed the job of Secretary send carried out the orders of Managing Director and no where it is proved that she performed managerial, administrative or supervisory functions. Even the functions Performed by directing the drivers, checking the stationary bills, was on the instructions of the Managing Director and suo moto she did nothing in the capacity of Manager or supervisor. Although, several increments were given to her but essentially she did typing and telex work and carried out the order of Managing Director. Even the Sind Labour Court has come to the conclusion that she was essentially a clerk and typist and did other work on the direction of the Managing Director, hence, she was a workwoman according to the Standing Order." The documents on record show that she was appointed on 1‑4‑1977 at the monthly salary of Rs.300. Her salary, from 31‑5‑1980 to 19‑6‑1982 was gradually raised from Rs.425 to Rs.1,100 per month. On being questioned learned counsel .for the petitioner could not satisfy the Court, that a multi‑national firm Messrs Wood wards (Pat.) Ltd., would be paying to their managerial staff a meagre salary of Rs.1,100 per month. He also could not satisfy us as to whether respondent No. 3 was doing any managerial or administrative duties. She is alleged to be confidential Secretary to the Managing Director, but there is nothing on record to show that she was doing any other duties except those mentioned by the learned Appellate Tribunal in its findings quoted above. The contention of respondent No. 3 before the Labour Court was, that she was promoted as Junior Secretary w.e.f. 17‑11‑1981 yet the nature of her duties did not change and she continued to work as a typist and Telex Operator. She has denied that she was appointed as Confidential Secretary to the Managing Director. Mr. A.R. Marx, Managing Director of the petitioner‑Company, has filed a lengthy affidavit before the Labour Court which is in file at page 197 to

237. In para. 20 of the affidavit, it is stated, that as Secretary to Managing Director i.e. respondent No. 3 used to carry on official business correspondence under her signature on company's letter head In para. 30 of the said affidavit it is admitted, that the telex system was installed in the company and as Secretary to the Managing Director, respondent No. 3, was Incharge of the Telex System and used to operate it when such need arose. In the cross‑examination Mr. Marx has admitted, that there was nothing in writing to show that, the respondent No. 3 was promoted as Secretary to the Managing Director. He has also admitted, that, certain letters were typed by the respondent No.

3. He is also unable to say, whether the respondent No. 3 had distributed wages to the labour directly. All these assertions and admissions of the parties leave no room for the doubt, that the respondent No. 3 was not appointed as Confidential Secretary to the Managing Director but as Junior Secretary. It is proved that her work was essentially of clerical nature viz. typing and operating telex and carrying out the orders of the Managing Director. The mere fact that terms and conditions of the service were not settled by Bargaining Agent of the Company or that style was carrying on correspondence under her signature would not change her position as a worker. That correspondence which she signed was under directions of the Managing Director and not in her independent capacity. A person will be deemed to be a workman/worker if he is employed to do manual or clerical work skilled or unskilled. We have already examined duties carried out by the respondent and have come to the conclusion, that she was mainly doing work of typing; operating telex and taking dictation of the Managing Director. She cannot, but b considered as a worker as defined under Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. As such we find no merit in this petition, which is dismissed in limine. A.A.???? Petition dismissed.