1976 PLP 196 (PLC)

2. The brief facts forming the background of this case are that the petitioner was employed in Indus Alkalies Chemicals Limited as Head Chow kidar. He was designated as Assistant Manager Security. On 2nd November 1972, he was charge-sheeted for having illegally taken away the gun and a packet of cartridges provided to him by the Factory to his house without permission. An enquiry was held and the charges were proved against him and finally his services were terminated by the Personnel Manager n 19th December 72 under the directions issued on 15th December 1972 by the Managing Director of the Organization. After the termination of his services the petitioner approached the Junior Labour Court for his re instatement but his application was dismissed on 26th July 1973. He sub sequently preferred an appeal to the Labour Court which was also dismissed on 28th May 1974.

3. It may be mentioned here that during this period the Factory was taken over by the Government under Economics Reforms Order 1 of 1972 and was renamed as "Sind Alkalies-Limited" in January 1972.

4. The main question involved in this case is whether the petitioner was a workman within the definition of the word "workman" given in West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called "Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968"). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the peti tioner was a Head Chowkidar and his duties were to supervise three other Chowkidars working under him, therefore he was virtually performing the functions of a supervisor and be would not therefore be covered by the definition of the word "worker" or "workman" given in Industrial Rela tions Ordinance, 1969. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has contended that the petitioner was a Head Chowki dar and besides supervising other Chowkidars he was himself performing the functions of a Chowkidar anal therefore he was not covered by the definition of the word "worker" as used in the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The definition of the word "workman" appearing in Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is as under: - 'Workman' `Workman' means any person employed in any industrial or commercial establishment to do any skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical work for hire or reward. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that because the petitioner was a Head Chowkidar and not Chowkidar does not seem to be weighty because on the appreciation of the evidence led by the parties the Labour Court came to the finding that the petitioner worked in the capacity of a Chowkidar as such he was not a workman. The basis for this finding was however different. What bad been canvassed before me was that a Chowkidar was not a workman because he did not perform the functions of manual or clerical nature. It was further argued that since the petitioner was a member of Security Staff on this ground also he was not a workman. In this connec tion reliance was placed on many a ruling of the Industrial Courts which may be enumerated below for convenience of reference: The consensus of opinion of the Industrial Courts has been that since the 1961 P L C 210; 1962 P L C 443; 1964 P L C 102; 1964 P L C 347; 1965 P L C 92 ; 1966 PLC240;1966PLC691and1968PLC

338. Chowkidar he is not a workman within the meaning of the definition given in the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. In 1964 P L C 102, the Industrial Court has also held that a Chowkidar being a member of security staff did not fall within the definition of "workman". In the present case it is an admitted feature that the petitioner belonged to Security Staff and whether be worked in supervisory capacity besides performing the functions of a Chowkidar himself or he did not perform any A supervisory duty, it is an undisputed fact that he was a member of the security staff as such he was not a workman within the meaning of definition of the term "workman" as defined in VV. P. Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. I, however, do not agree with the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner was not a workman because he performed the duties of adminis trative nature, In fact the parties' case has throughout been that the peti tioner besides working himself as a Chowkidar also supervised three other Chowkidars. On this basis alone it cannot be said that he worked as a manager or administrator. For being a manager or administrator it is necessary that a person should be enjoying such powers as powers to appoint and remove from service or initiate disciplinary action against an employee. These and such other powers would determine ones managerial or adminis trative capacity. In short a person performing managerial or administrative duties should enjoy controlling powers over the staff. The petitioner in this case was not in arty manner entrusted with powers of managerial or admini strative nature because he could not remove or appoint or take disciplinary action against any employee. At best it can be said that he functioned as a supervisor as well besides performing the functions of a Chowkidar. Since he was not drawing a salary exceeding Rs. 800.00 therefore on this ground also be would be considered a worker within the meaning of term "worker" or "workman" as defined in Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

5. For the reasons set out above, it is manifest that the petitioner per formed the functions of a Chowkidar besides supervising other Chovkidars, hence for this reason and also for the reason that he belonged to the Security Staff of the Organisation of the respondent No. 3 he was not a workman.

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that I do not find any substance in this petition which is hereby-dismissed. The parties are however left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.