1976 PLP 538 (PLC)

2. The facts leading to this appeal are that appellant Rafiq Khan was employed as Weaving Master in Messrs Azim Taxtile Limited with effect from 14-2-70 at monthly salary of Rs. 1100 in terms of appointment letter dated 3-4-70. On 4th December 1972, the appellant was discharged with imme diate effect without valid and legal notice. The appellant submitted his grievance to the employer on 6-12-1972 but to no effect and consequently he instituted an application under section 25-A of the Ordinance before Sind Junior Labour Court No. V, Karachi on 18-12-72 (application No. 33/72 praying for re-instatement in service. The learned Junior Labour Court dismissed the application on two-fold grounds viz.: (1) that the appellant is not a "workman" within the definition of section 2, clause (xxviii) of I. R. O., and (ii) on merits of the case. Against the impugned order Rafiq Khan has pre. ferred an appeal before this Court.

3. The first main question is whether the appellant is a "workman" as defined in Industrial Relations Oradinance, 1969? In order to invoke jurisdiction of a Labour Court, it is necessary to determine if the appellant was a. "workman." within the definition of section 2 (xxviii) of Industrial Rela tions Ordinance, 1969. Framers of law altered the definition of workman from time to time. The definition of `workman" was last amended by Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972, promulgated on November 7, 1972. I reproduce definition of "worker" and "workman" as defined to section 2 (xxviii) of the Ordinance as under : "Worker" and "workman" means any person oat falling within the definition of employer who is employed (including employment as a supervisor or as an apprentice) in an establishment or industry for hire or reward either directly or through a contractor whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Ordinance in relation to an industrial dispute All includes a person who has bean dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid off or otherwise removed from employment in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge, retrenchment, lay-off or removal has led to the dispute but does not include any person- a) who is employed mainly in managerial or administrative capacity. or (b) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding rupees six hundred per mensem, or performs, either because of the nature of the duties attached to the office by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of managerial nature. 4, It may be mentioned here that Indian Legislature also changed definition of "workman" at many stages before Partition of the sub-continent and also after Partition. The clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (xxviii) of section 2 of I. R. O. 1969 correspond and are in line with Clauses (iii) and (iv) of definition of "workman" as amended in Industrial Dispute (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act XXXVI of 1956 (India) and they read as under: (iii) who is employed mainly in managerial or administrative capacity: or (iv) who, being employed in supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the officer or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.

5. Thus these clauses of Act XXXVI of 1956 (India) have been repeated in Clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (xxvii) of section 2 I. R. O. 1969 as amended by I. R. O. (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972. There is little difference in Clause (iv) of the Indian Act and Clause (b) of our Ordinance as in Indian Act amount shown is Rs. 500 while in our Ordinance Rs. 600.

6. Definition of "workman" in West Pakistan Industrial and Commer cial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968 is any person employed in any industrial or commercial establishment to do any skilled or un-skilled, manual or clerical (work) for hire or reward," The word "manual" has not been defined in the Ordinance but its dictionary meaning is "done", "worked" or "used by hand" or "working with hand". In the light of the meaning of the word "manual" a workman is a person who is employed to do any skilled or unskilled work by hand.

7. In Raymond v. Ford Motor Company (1951) 1 L L J 167), it was held that the mere fact that a person has to do something by his own hands by way of checking, or testing work done by other workmen, will not make his work manual work. In Simpson and Company Limited v. Martin (1951) 1 L L 1 43), it was held that a foreman, whose duties and responsibilities do not involve any manual work save and except as is necessary in connection with his supervisory function is not a workman. In another case, Ford Motor Staff Union v. The Ford Motor Com pany India Limited, Bombay (1953) 1 L L J 334) it was held that a supervisor or a foreman in order to see that work was properly done has himself to check the work or to make a record of the work done by person under him does not make turn really a manual or clerical work himself. The tribunal was of the opinion that this kind of work is really incidental to his supervisory work but essen tially and primarily his duties will be one of supervision of the work done by persons under him.

8. Now let us examine and analyse the evidence on record in the instant appeal of Mr. Rafiq Khan before me. In this application under section 25-A of the Ordinance, Rafiq Khan claims his status as "Weaving Master" but nothing beyond that. He does not disclose the nature and details of his duties. He merely says that he is Weaving Master. He was cross-examined by the other side and be admits in his cross-examination that his salary was Rs. 1300 p. m. He further testifies that he used to work with hand in department of looms of Towels and in Respondent's factory he used to look after the machinery, etc. and he used to attend to looms when machinery of the same went out of order. He further goes on to testify that 2-3 jobbers used to be under his control acid smell techniques were to be corrected to major faults. Thus he supervised the work of jobbers under him and looked after the machinery. His primary duty was of supervision of work done A by jobbers under him. Mere attending to major faults of the machine would not make his work manual. It has been held in 1971 P L C 1 by Supreme Court of Pakistan that a person doing something with his own hands by way of checking or testing work done by other workmen will not make his work manual within meaning of definition of "workman". The learned represen tative of Appellant has not been able to show me any case where a Weaving Master has ever been treated or described as a workman." In absence of any precedent and evidence to prove that he had been doing manual of clerical work compiled with that fact that his wages exceeded Rs. 600 P.m. It is difficult to hold him as a workman . I am, therefore, of the opinion that he has failed to prove that he is a workman and accordingly uphold the findings of the lower Court as to an issue whether applicant is a workman . I dismiss the appeal without going into the merits of the case. No order as to cost.