2026 PLP 94 (PLC)

FAISAL ZAMAN KHAN, J.

Through this petition orders dated 25.09.2018 and 11.11.2021 passed by respondents Nos.4 and 5 have been assailed. By virtue of the former order the grievance petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and through the later the same has been upheld.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the else are that vide letter dated 31.12.2007 petitioner was appointed as Financial Analyst by respondent No.1, whereafter, through letter dated 30.11.2016 his services were terminated, against which petitioner, after issuance of a grievance notice, filed a grievance petition before respondent No.4, during the course of proceedings of which an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. was filed by respondents Nos.1 to 3 that since 'petitioner is not a workman, therefore, his grievance petition is not maintainable, which was duly replied by the petitioner, whereafter, through order dated 25.09.2018 the application was allowed and the grievance petition was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.5, which also met the same fate and was dismissed vide order dated 11.11.2021, hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying on judgments reported as National Bank of Pakistan and another v. Anwar Shah and others (2015 SCMR 434), Fauji Foundation (Headquarters) through Manager Administration v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others (2007 SCMR 1346) and Saleem Akhtar Rajput and another v. Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and 2 others (1994 CLC 211) highlights that without affording an opportunity of leading evidence to the petitioner in order to establish that he is a workman or not, his grievance petition could not have been dismissed on mere bald assertion of respondents Nos.1 to 3 that petitioner is not a workman, thus, respondents Nos.4 and 5 erred in law in concurrently accepting the application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. and dismissing the grievance petition and appeal of the petitioner.

4. Replying to the above, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3 submits that the appointment letter of the petitioner clearly depicts that he is not a workman as he is enjoying perks and privileges equivalent to a Officer of Grade-17, thus, both the courts below have rightly decided against the petitioner.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. The moot question, which requires determination by this Court, is as to whether the petitioner is a workman or not?

7. For maintaining a grievance petition by an employee before the forums provided under the Labour Laws for settlement of an industrial dispute or a case of unfair labour practice the basic requirement is that the person approaching the said court should be a worker or a workman as contemplated in Section 2(xxxiii) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (which is applicable in the case in hand) and the initial burden to prove this fact lies upon the employee who has brought the lis before the court, so as to prove that his nature of work was ministerial or clerical and not managerial or administrative and this fact has to be proved by him through his oral as well as documentary evidence.

8. While interpreting the afore-referred proposition the Supreme Court of Pakistan in judgments reported as Muslim Commercial Bank Limited v. Rizwan Ali Khan and others (2024 SCMR 360) has held as follows:- "The IRA, 2012 divides employment into two broad categories being workman and employees, with the former doing clerical or manual work and the latter doing managerial, administrative or supervisory work. In the event of a grievance, by a workman, of unfair labour practices, the workman can invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or NIRC for redressal of their grievance. The fundamental requirement for such invocation is that the grievance must be of a person employed in an establishment as a workman. The question as to who is a workman has been considered by this Court time and again in various cases. It has been consistently held that evidence must be produced to establish the nature of work and functions of the aggrieved claimant, particularly to show that the work is manual or clerical and not managerial or supervisory. It has been emphasized that the court has to give due consideration to the cumulative effect of the evidence in the context of the nature of work that the workman claims he was doing so as to determine if he is a workman and not rely on piecemeal evidence. For a claimant to be categorized as a workman, his designation alone is not relevant and cannot be considered conclusive evidence of his work status rather, it is the pith and substance of his duties and functions which must be manual or clerical. When understanding further the definition of worker and workman, mere reliance on the fact that it is routine work does not make one's functions and duties clerical or manual and is not sufficient to establish the workman status. Manual and clerical work involves physical exertion as opposed to mental or intellectual exertion. Furthermore, even routine work can involve the exercise of initiative, imagination, direction and supervision while maintaining registers, submission of reports, preparing of vouchers and statements and such jobs cannot be termed as being that of a workman simply because they are routine work. The judicial consensus of the Court with respect to the determination of the work status is clear such that the court must analyze the nature of the actual duties and functions of the employee to ascertain whether he falls within the ambit of the definition of worker or workman for which collective evidence must be examined to ascertain whether the duties were supervisory or managerial or whether they are manual or clerical. Therefore, in determining the work status, the overall nature of duties assigned to that person along with the functions of the job and the manner in which he performs his duties must be brought onto evidence and must be duly considered. With respect to the Bank-employees, this Court has settled that duties such as issuing cheque books, checking ledgers and preparing statements of accounts are not merely manual or clerical tasks, and do not fall within the works of a workman as they involve the exercise of discretion and decision-making.

6. To determine 'whether a person is a workman is a finding of fact, routed in evidence and the person who approaches the court on the basis of an averment that he is a workman carries theft initial burden of proof to establish that he is a workman. To emphasize, when dealing with the question of burden of proof in establishing the status of the workman, this Court has consistently held that such burden lies on the person claiming to be a workman. It is the bounden duty of a person who approaches the Labour Court to demonstrate through evidence the nature of duties and functions, and to show that he is not working in any managerial or administrative capacity and that he is not an employer. In the absence of such evidence, a grievance petition would not be maintainable before the Labour Court for lack of jurisdiction. Moreover, it has been established that this burden of proof is to be discharged by the claimant through documentary, and oral evidence supporting his claim that the nature of his work is, in fact, manual or clerical. This requires the production of evidence, documentary or oral, which shows the nature of duties and the functions of the claimant pursuant to his claim that he is a workman. It has been clarified that even if there does not exist the power to hire or fire any person, the nature of the job as performed by the person must be evident from the holistic view of the record produced and that it has to be determined through overall record whether he was employed as a workman doing manual and clerical work and whether he was discharging his functions in a managerial and supervisory role. Accordingly, it's vital for the court to consider all the evidence and to ascertain the duties and functions of the person claiming to be a workman and to ensure that the workman has discharged his burden with the required evidence. When it involves bank employees, duties and functions are documented as is daily work, which should be brought before the court in evidence." (Emphasis supplied) While considering an identical proposition the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a judgment reported as United Bank Limited (UBL) through its President and others v. Jamil Ahmed and others (2024 SCMR 164). has held as follows:- "

6. We have also gone through the charge sheet issued by the management and the reply filed by the respondent No.1 demonstrates certain admissions made by the respondent No.1 with regard to his employment status and promotion as Branch Manager. In order to adjudicate whether a person is performing his duties as a 'workman' or 'worker', or Manager, Officer and or duties of supervisory nature, the pith and substance of the adjudication predominantly depends on the nature of duties and not on the basis of the nomenclature of the post. In order to thrash out this controversy, the appropriate appraisal for assistance can be made by dint of oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties in the court of first instance. In case the employee asserts that he was performing duties as workman and such contentions are opposed by the management, then in such eventuality the burden of proof lies upon the employee to substantiate that he was in fact performing the duties of a 'workman' and the mere nomenclature of the post does not affect his status of employment as worker or workman." (Emphasis supplied) Above view has also been reiterated in a judgment reported as National Bank of Pakistan and another v. Anwar Shah and others (2015 SCMR 434).

9. Keeping the afore-referred dicta in view and placing them in juxtaposition with the facts of the present case it has surfaced that the appointment letter of the petitioner, which is available on the case file transpires that not a single word has been mentioned therein about the nature of the duties assigned to the petitioner so as to determine that he is a workman or not.

10. In the above backdrop, from the perusal of the findings rendered by respondents Nos.4 and 5, it has surfaced that they have erred in law while holding that the petitioner is not a workman only for the reason that the petitioner is enjoying the perks and privileges equivalent to a Officer of Grade-17 and his designation is that of Financial Analyst.

11. In the afore-referred circumstances, since there was nothing on the record wherefrom this could be culled out that what duties have been assigned to the petitioner as a Financial Analyst wherefrom his status could be determined and for proving the said fact it was mandatory that the parties should be directed to produce their respective evidence whereupon a decision could be made regarding the status of the petitioner as a workman or, otherwise, as at the preliminary stage no determination could be made, therefore, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 erred in law while passing the impugned orders.

12. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed, as a sequel to which the impugned orders are set aside, resultantly, the grievance petitioner filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending before respondent No.4, who shall re-decide the same after affording opportunity to the parties to lead their respective evidence in accordance with law. UN/M-204/L Petition allowed.