1983 PLP 292 (PLC)

This appeal emanates from the decision dated 12‑8‑1982 passed by the learned Labour Court No. 2, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed on the sole ground that he was not a workman. The appellant was a chargeman. The allegation against him for which he was dismissed, was that he had committed theft of burnt wire weighing about one kilogram. The appellant in respect of his duties stated that there were 9 or 10 winders under him to whom he used to allot work verbally, that the winders were doing winding and whensoever they had any' difficulty. he did the work himself and if there was no difficulty he supervised them. Abdul Khaliq. Assistant Manager, was examined as R.W. 1 who deposed that the appellant was supervising the work of winders and had not to do anything himself. He also said that the appellant was the head of the winding section. In cross‑examination he said that in case of difficulty the appellant used to guide workers but such occasions were rare. He also said in cross‑examination that the appellant was checking the attendance of the workers. and used to send reports to the time officer and had to deal with their leave applications and to send progress reports in writing.

3. This is apparent from the evidence of the parties that the main duty of the appellant was to allot work to the winders and to supervise their work. Sending of progress reports was ancillary to the main duties. The appellant no doubt said that in case of difficulty he used to work himself, but this is not correct. R.W. I rightly stated that in case of difficulty the appellant used to guide the workers. Always guidance is to be given and not that the work is to be taken in hand. As a matter of fact the winders cannot find any difficulty in winding electric motors. New motors are prepared in PECO. There is set formula according to which winding is done. Gauge of the enameled wire is given in the data. Wire of the required gauge is supplied to the winders so they have not to determine gauge. If the motor has an armature the number of turns per coil is told to them according to the formula and they have to wind the armature according to it. Likewise Commutator connections are told to them such as whether the connections are straight or from one to three or one to four. Field coils are prepared according to weight of each Coil which too is given in the a formula. The process for winding burnt motors is the same, If some motors of cancelled moulds come for winding its data may not be available and in such cases the gauge of wire is to be found by examining the damaged wire of the armature and the field coils number of turns the armature are counted and weight of the field coils is determined by weigh ing the damaged coils. Commotater connections of old coil are noted down or remembered before cutting the old connections the armature and the field coils are wound and commotater connection are set accordingly. The supervisor has only to watch and supervise the work of winding. It is now clear that the supervisor has not to do any work with his own hands. He has to supervise to see that the winders are not slack in the discharge of duties, not they do not slip away and that they are not working with wet hands are wet the wires are damaged resulting in the decrease of the life of the electric motor. I may say that the appellant does not know the duties of a supervisor. I had put to him relevant technical question during arguments but he could not give correct replies. Anyway h according to his duties had not to do work with his own hands and ha only to supervise the work of the winders working under him. He thus was not a workman. As upshot of the discussion made above the appeal. is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed