1982 PLP 841 (PLC(CS))

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑ ‑‑ S. 2(i) & S. O. 12(3)‑Bank Officer Grade III working as Branch Manager‑No suggestion of doing any clerical or manual work ‑Presumption arises that he would be performing mainly supervisory duties and not a workman hence not entitled to file grievance petition of before Labour Court against termination of service‑Grievance pet it' on‑Industrial Rel4tions ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A. Kifayat Hussain v. United Bank Ltd. 1980 P L C 116 rel. Shabbir Ahmad Awan for Appellant. Nizamuddin Baloch for Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st March, 1982. This appeal is directed against the; decision of the learned VIIth Labour Court given on 13th September 1981, dismissing the grievance; petition of the appellant and 3 other employees of the National Bank of Pakistan, on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and hear grievance petitions of bank employees. The learned Labour Court, in its decision his referred to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Syed Abdul Aziz v. Senior Vice‑President (Administration) National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi and 2 others, being Appeal No. HYD‑18/79. This appeal was admitted for hearing in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Liaquat Ali v. National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi and 2 others (1980 P L C 869), where it has been held that the right of a worker under an award, includ ing an award by the Bank Wage Commission, is enforceable by the Labour Courts under section 25‑A, and such right is not eroded by the provisions relating to Wage Commissions under section 38‑A, I. R. O. For the purposes of this appeal, however, it is unnecessary for me to go into the question whether the Labour Courts have jurisdiction to deal with cases of bank employees after the Second Wage Commissions Award was announced and published in the Gazette, as the appeal can be disposed of on a second ground, which clearly appears from a perusal of the grievance petition of the appellant. It has been asserted by the appellant in his grievance petition that he was, at the relevant time, a Grade III officer and was working as Manager Incharge of the Khairpur Nathan Shah Branch of the National Bank of Pakistan. No claim has been made by the appellant in his grievance petition that he was a workman for the purposes of Standing Orders or that he was employed to do any manual or clerical work. Being Manager Incharge of the branch, the presumption would be that lie hart over‑all control of the branch and A would ordinarily not be required to perform any manual or clerical duties, but he would be performing mainly supervisory duties. A similar issue as has arisen in the instant case, arose in the case of Kefayat Hussain v. United Bank Ltd. (1980 P L C 116). In that case, the appellant, Kifayat Hussain, was promoted as an officer, Grade III, and there was no indica tion, as in the instant case, that after promotion he was to perform or had performed duties of clerical nature. It was accordingly held that Kifayat Hussain was not a workman and that his grievance petition was not maintainable on that account.

2. Since the present appellant admittedly was not only a Grade III officer but Manager of a branch of cite bind: arid further it was not claimed by him that he was performing and was employed to perform manual or clerical duties, he would not fall within the definition of a workman for the purposes of the Sind Industrial anti Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. He would, therefore, not be entitled to file and maintain a grievance petition against the termination of his services under clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25‑A. I. R. O. I would accordingly dismiss the appeal though for a different reason from the one on which the learned Court has rejecter' the appellant's grievance petition. Needless to add that it may to open to the appellant to seek redress through the normal Civil Courts. Appeal dismissed.