2000 PLP 373 (PLC)

2. Facts, giving rise to the above appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant has been in the employment of the respondent as Deputy Manager on 17‑7‑1989 in the Engineering Department on permanent basis. His service was terminated on 13‑10‑1992. The grievance notice was served by the appellant on the respondent on 5‑11‑1992. Having received no reply, the grievance petition was filed on 14‑12‑1992. The respondent contested the said application by filing the written statement. The appellant got himself examined as his own witness. The respondent, however, produced two witnesses; its General Manager and Driver.

3. The learned Presiding Officer framed the following two issues:‑‑ (1) Whether the appellant is a workman ? (2) Whether the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 are applicable ?

4. The learned Labour Court decided both the issues against the appellant and dismissed the petition by its decision, dated 15‑2‑1997, as aforesaid.

5. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Tasnim, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Mahboob Rizvi; Representative for the respondent Company.

6. Admittedly the appellant was employed as Deputy Manager, drawing a salary of Rs.9,450 at the time of the termination. The charter of duties, mentioned in the order, impugned in the appeal it has been amply proved by the documentary evidence as well as his own admissions in the cross‑examination that he used to act as Site Incharge. In fact, he voluntarily stated that he used to verify the running bills of the contractors, who used to work at SITE for the respondent‑company. In proof, reference may be made to Annexures G/1 to G/6 which are the running bills of the contractor duly verified by him. Reference may also be made to Annexure C, C/1 and D which are minutes of the meeting with Pakistan Steel and Nespak where the appellant represented the respondent‑company, discussing various works/projects where decisions were taken. Reference may also be made to several other documents such as Annexures E, F/1 to F/17, which are purchase orders bearing the signature of the appellant in the capacity of Site Incharge on behalf of the respondent company. Besides Exhs.3/4, 3/5 and 3/6 may also be referred to. These are bills which were verified and checked by the appellant and bear his signatures thereon. He also used to sign payment sheets of casual workers Exhs.3/7 to 3/9, which bear his signatures as Site Incharge.

7. Mr. Mahboob Rizvi, has relied on the cases namely (1) Sadiq Ali Khan v. Punjab Labour Appellate' Tribunal and 2 others (1994 PLC 211), (2) Ganga R. Madhani v. Standard Bank Ltd. and others (1985 SCMR 1511) and (3) Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Limited v. Abdul Ghaffar and 2 others (1993 SCMR 511), wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the function of the employee was of supervisory nature, he would be excluded from the definition of workman.

8. In view of the above evidence, documentary as well as oral and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it leaves no room for doubt that the appellant was not a workman and, as such, the petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 was, itself, not maintainable.

9. As far as the second point at issue is concerned, as to whether the respondent‑Company had employed 20 or more workmen during the preceding 12 months of the date of termination of the appellant, on the application, made under section 36, I.R.O., 1969, of the appellant, the Company has produced an Attendance Register from January, 1990 to December, 1992. The entries, made in the Register show that the appellant was one of the employer of the company. The total number of employees vary from month to month e.g. in the month of January, 1990 the total number of employees has been shown as 20 whereas in February to July, 1990, the number is 21, but in August, 1990 it again shows 20 and so is the case in the month of September, 1990, but in October, 1990 and November, 1990, the number of employees is merely

16. Since the termination order is, dated 13‑10‑1992, so the entries in the Register from September, 1991 to 1992 will be relevant. During the aforesaid period, it appears that the number of employees generally is 23 and lastly in June, 1992, it is 27 and so on up till October, 1992. But this is the total number of employees, which includes workmen, officers, even the General Manager and Deputy General Manager, Site Incahrge, Supervisor and other officers etc. Although the nature of duties of the above officers, whose names have been included in the Register, have not come on record, it appears that the number of workmen employed during the preceding year of the appellant s termination seems to be less than 20.

10. From the aforesaid discussion. I see no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Presiding Officer. As such, the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T /303 /K (Lab)(Trib) Appeal dismissed.