1994 PLP 460 (PLC)

8. The Labour Court finding the material issues against the petitioner dismissed the petition, culminating in this appeal.

9. The petitioner maintained that he was engaged in carrying out duties of clerical nature and in his petition mentioned his duties as follows:‑‑ "That the application was engaged in carrying out duties of a clerical nature consisting of maintaining and reading FBP files making entries in FBP register detachment and despatch of documents, scrutiny of documents, preparing of FBP judgment sheets, preparing waste sheets, preparing monthly statements and any other job assigned by AGM/Manager etc."

10. In his affidavit he also went on to say that for the work that was assigned to him he had no clerk or typist to attend to the same, and was done by him personally. He further went to say that the FBP sheets or the waste sheets were not even being typed out. Even the monthly statement was to be prepared by him in his own hand. In short he had no supervisory function at all.

11. In the written statement it was alleged that being an Officer in the Export Department he had to attend to the Letter of Credit issued by the Foreign Banks as well as the relevant State Bank Regulations and no clerical work was done by him at all, except when his junior officer or the typists of the Department were not available. He signed important documents on behalf of the bank and performed responsible functions in relation thereto besides negotiating foreign bills. There is also a job description' pertaining to him which reads as under:‑‑ "(1) Maintenance and raising FBP files. (2) Entries in FBP register, (3) Detachment and despatch of documents (FBP). (4) Scrutiny of FBP documents.

5. Also to attend to following when instructed by OIC‑Exports. 6(a) Preparing FBP Lodgement Sheet. (b) Preparing Waste Sheet. (d) Preparing Monthly Statement. (7) Acquisition of deposits, preferably at low cost. (8) Any other job/project assigned by A.G.M./Manager F. Trade OIC Exports."

12. He admitted in the cross‑examination that he was signing and endorsing on Bills of Exchange, Form E, Sign Bills of Landing, Scrutinising documents like Letters of Credits, Forwarding Schedules, Lodgement Sheets, Scrutiny Memos, Statements of Outstanding FBPs, Transfer Sheets and Payment Sheets, etc. but under instruction of the Manager. He added that he was given only an Internal Power of Attorney and not an International one.

13. It is true that in the respondent‑Bank even the telephone operators and the typists also were Grade‑III Officers as admitted by Mujahid Ali Khan, but there can be no manner of doubt that his duties were not of a clerical but pf supervisory nature.

14. It is a trite proposition of law that it is the pith and substance of employment, and the work performed by an employee which has got to be looked into and not something ancillary or incidental. (See Hotel Intercontinental, Lahore and another v. Bashir A. Malik and others PLD 1986 SC 103). As held in the case of National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Court No. V, Faisalabad 1993 SCMR page 672, the burden was upon the appellant to establish that he was a workman and it cannot be said that the same has been discharged. Looking to the nature of the duties being performed by him I have no manner of doubt that the main 'work or the substantial part of it was in supervisory capacity, and therein lies the rub. The petition filed by him would not be maintainable.

15. It is true that the appellant had objected to the appointment of Shahid A. Qureshi but there was only the chimerical apprehension that he would not be impartial. There was nothing personal against him. He had appeared as a witness before the Labour Curt and the suggestions put to him were hardly of any substance. It is significant that the appellant had not a word to say against him even in the grievance notice. The objection taken against him was only of the routine Streotyped nature, without any significance.

16. That the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to him will be neither here nor there.

17. As for merit, a number of responsible people had testified against him. They have all spoken with one voice that the appellant was loudly talking on the telephone, during which he had abused Humayoon Zia and had used intimadatory language against him which could be heard by the staff sitting at some distance from him. Even when counselled to hold his breath, he had maintained his defiant posture and stated that if he could not settle his account, he would shoot himself.

18. Humayoon Zia, in bank hierarchy, stands at number two, next to the General Manager. He was not a witness and those appearing at the enquiry did not open their lips on their own as to why this frenzied out burst. But there appears to be no conceivable reason as to why all these persons, out of whom Mir Mujahid Ali Khan is a Senior Manager, should band together and spin out this tissue of lies against the appellant. On his own showing the appellant has no bad blood with any of them. What is worse the appellant, though physically present during the domestic enquiry, did not care to exercise his right of defence. He has, therefore, to take the consequences.

19. Under the circumstances the appeal is devoid of any merit. I will, therefore, uphold the order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2296/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.