1995 PLP 732 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing. 18th May, 1995. This appeal arises from the order of the Sindh Labour Court No. III, Karachi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for re‑instatement was dismissed.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant was working as a Production Manager in Berger Paints Pakistan Limited, Karachi, the respondents, from June, 1992. On 25‑10‑1993 his services were terminated simpliciter after payment of all the legal dues. He fled his grievance petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. before the Labour Court. After hearing the arguments of both the parties the Labour Court gave the decision that the applicant could not be considered to be a workman and his grievance petition was dismissed as being not maintainable.

3. Mr. Gohar Iqbal for the appellant has argued that the Production Manager of this Company can be regarded as a workman because he was supervising the mixing of the raw materials of the paints according to the formula, checking the temperature etc. He was, therefore, doing manual work. Mr. Gohar Iqbal has further argued that his order of termination gives no express reason for his termination of service 'and that the termination is, therefore, in violation of Standing Order 12(3) of the (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.

4. It has, on the other hand, been argued by Mr. Masood Ahmed Khan, for the respondent‑company that the Production Manager cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be regarded to be a worker. He has pointed out that the appellant was appointed in 1978 as a Chemist. His Bio‑data filed in evidence shows that he was M.Sc. in Chemistry and LL.B. He was working as a Chemist in M/s. Jeason & Nicholson of Pakistan Ltd. He also worked as Lecturer in Federal Government College. Thereafter he worked as Chemist in Muslim Match Factory, Silver Match Factory and as Analyst in Good Luck Industries. That he was initially appointed by the respondent in Grade‑10 as a Chemist in the Management Cadre. He was promoted as Production Manager in June, 1992. He was number 3 Officer in the Company after General Manager and Deputy General Manager. He was drawing salary of Rs.16,

137. He had been given a loan for purchase of a car for his conveyance and all the medical facilities. He travelled in First Class AC if he had to under take a journey. He was entitled to stay in a Three Stars Hotels. On his termination he was given three months' notice and he was paid the cheques for his legal dues amounting to more than four lacs rupees.

5. That apart from his designation and pay the nature of his duties as Production Manager were not of a workman or a clerk but he was a Member of the Management. He used to assess the work of his subordinates giving them A.C.Rs. He used to recommend leave applications of the staff working under him and his duties were of managerial and supervisory nature. It is therefore, hard to believe that such well‑known Company would employ a person of the status of a Production Manager for the purpose of manual labour.

6. The appellant cannot, therefore, be regarded as a workman under the (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 or the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. His grievance application is, therefore, not maintainable and if he considers his termination to be a breach of his `Service Contract' he can have recourse to ordinary civil law.

7. The decision of the Labour Court is maintained and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./2487/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.