1982 PLP 407 (SCMR)

SHAFI‑UR‑REHMAN, J.‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 13.1‑1980 whereby a Consti tutional petition filed by respondent No. 2, was accepted and the petitioner was declared to be not a workman.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager with respondent No. 2 the Punjab Agricultural Development and Supplies Corporation, Lahore. His services were terminated on 8‑1‑1978 within a period of one year which was prescribed as the period of probation. The petitioner approached the Labour Court with his grievance. His case was that he was a workman under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. His period of probation could not have been for a period longer than three months. After comple ting three months' service with the respondent he became its regular employee and termination of his service could take place in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 12(5). The labour Court dismissed his applica tion holding that he was not a workman. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the Chairman, Punjab Appellate Tribunal who accepted the appeal and directed respondent No. 2 to re‑instate the petitioner with back benefits. The respondent No. 2 challenged the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal to deal with the petitioner's grievance on the ground that the petitioner was not a work man.

3. The learned Judge in the High Court examined the charter of duties of the petitioner, the work actually performed by him and concluded that as the duties of the Assistant Managers involved achiev ing the goals of the Corporation, i.e. increasing agricultural production and involved the collection of information and making projection of requirement in future and to keep a liaison with the people and the Govern ment departments, the functions could not be called clerical. He was held to be not a workman and the adjudication by the Labour Courts was declared to be without jurisdiction.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was the statement of the Regional Manager, which clearly showed what were the duties that were performed by the petitioner. Besides, if there existed any charter of duties it was not circulated to th‑. Assistant Managers and they were not discharging all the duties, which were assigned to the post. Factually, the petitioner was discharging only routine duties of a clerical nature and had to be treated as a workman.

5. The duties of the post as would appear from the document Exh. D/1 included the supervision of all the sale points falling under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Managers. He was also required to assess the requirement of seed and fertilizers of each sale point. He was to tour the sale point in the Tehsil at least once a week in the slack season and twice a week in peak season, to inspect and supervise the operation of the sale points. He was to arrange for the lease of godowns for storage of fertilizers. He was to have close liaison with Cooperative Department, Agriculture Depart ment and all the Managers of local branches of the Banks. He was to hold meetings of farmers and was to educate them about the recommended dosages of fertilizers. He was to have good contact with progressive farmers of his Tehsil. He was to make suggestions to improve the working of the Corporation. The petitioner as a witness stated that he was told nothing about his duties and was required to do all that the District Manager directed him to do and this included the touring, the visit, the: inspection, the supervision and the checking. Even on this statement the petitioner would not be a workman for he would be exercising all the delegated authority of an officer.

6. The High Court has in the light of the charter of his duties and the duties that he was actually performing held him to be not a workman. His duties were manifestly not clerical or manual. In the circumstances, no legal error has been committed in the judgment as may require interference by this Court. Leave is therefore, refused. Petition dismissed.