1981 PLP 214 (PLC)

Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Respondent. Date of hearing : 23rd January, 1980. This appeal by the Management is directed against a decision by the learned Fourth Labour Court, given on 12th November, 1979 accepting the grievance application of the respondent workman against his dismissal from service and directing his re‑instatement in service with back benefits.

2. The services of the respondent; who was employed as a Ring Jobber in the appellant establishment, were terminated in March, 1978. There is, however, a dispute between the parties as to the exact mode of the termination of his services and the date on which‑they were terminated. According to the respondent, he was gate‑stopped on 24th March, 1978 and in support of his contention he has produced a slip from the gate chowkidar/security incharge, though the slip wrongly bears the date 24th March, 197'

1. The version of the appellant establishment, on the other hand, is that the respondent's services were terminated, vide letter, dated 21st March., 1978 in consequence of reorganization in the appellants mills by reason of which initially the posts of jobbers in the Ring Department were abolished and later the posts of jobbers in other Departments of the Mills were also done away with. The respondent challenged the termina tion of his services before the learned Labour Court. The appellant establishment resisted the grievance application of the respondent on the twin grounds that he was not a workman and as such his grievance appli cation was not maintainable and that further his services were terminated bona fide in consequence of re-organisation. The learned Labour Court repel led both these contentions. It has held that the respondent was a workman for the purposes of the I. R. O. and that the plea of reorganization was a cloak to get rid of the services of the respondent. It also viewed with great suspicion and distrust the handwritten letter of termination of services of the respondent. The learned Labour Court accordingly held the termination of services of the respondent as being contrary to the provi sions of Standing Order 12 and hence ordered his re‑instatement in service with back benefits.

3. I have heard Mr. Zamirul Hassan, the learned counsel for the appellant establishment, and Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, who appeared for the respondent. The first ground on which Mr. Zamirul. Hassan assailed the orders of the learned Labour Court was that it has wrongly considered the issue whether the respondent was a workman for the pur poses of tile I.R.O., when in fact it has given relief to him under Standing Order 12 and, therefore, should have considered the question whether he was a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders Ordinance. This objection of Mr. Zamirul Hassan is well‑founded. I accordingly requested him to satisfy me whether the functions which the respondent was required to perform in the appellant establishment did not qualify him as a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders Ordinance. Both Mr. Zamirul Hassan as well as Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim referred me to the plead ings of the parties as well as the evidence of the respondent and Syed Hamid Hussain Zaidi, the Labour Officer in the establishment. As these pieces of evidence mainly were in regard to the functions of a workman under the I.R.O., I found it necessary to record the further statement of workman Abdul Rehman for the purposes of satisfying myself whether he is a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders Ordinance. This, was necessary as the respondent had challenged the termination of his services under Standing Orders 12(3) and for enforcing a right under the said Order he was required to be a workman tinder the Standing Orders Ordinance, as held by this Tribunal in the case of Johnson & Johnson v. Zubair Ahmed decided on 10th October, 1979. Mirza Muhammad Kazim mainly relied in this behalf upon the assertion made by the respondent it, his grievance application that he was a workman which assertion, according to the learned counsel, had not been disputed or denied by the appel lant establishment, and the admission made by the Labour Officer of the appellant establishment that the respondent had been given an admission card and was also in receipt of bonus and other benefits granted under the settlements. Mirza Muhammad Kazim submitted that attendance card and such benefits are only granted to workmen and the delivery of the attendance card and the grant of the above benefits to the respondent clearly indicate that he was being treated by the appellant establishment itself as a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders Ordinance. On the other hand Mr. Zamirul Hassan referred me to the evidence of the respondent and the Labour Officer of the appellant establishment which is to the effect that there were double siders working under the respondent from whom he used to take work and that‑further he not only used to recom mend workers for employment in the appellant establishment but also used to recommend their leave applications. As already stated, since the evidence before the Learned Labour Court did not establish one way or the other whether tile respondent was performing or required, to perform manual work, I considered it necessary to record his statement: on this point. He stated that though there were undoubtedly workers 'working under him yet he was required to work alongwith them on the achines. Elaborating on the point as to the exact nature of the physic/manual work which he was required to do, he stated that he had to work alongwith the doffers to change bobbins to set the bobbins properly in the machines and also to tie up threads of the bobbins and thread them through the machines. He further stated that when any machine got dirty it was his function to clean it set it and see that it was in proper condition. I was impressed with the frankness and demeanour of the respondent, land con sider that he gave straightforward and truthful answers clearly establishes the fact that he was employed to do manual though his duties also included functions of a supervisory nature over workmen in his charge. The respondent thus, in my opinion, falls the definition of `workman' as given in the. Standing Orders Ordinance.

4. The second ground on which Mr. Zamirul Hassan assailed the order of the learned Labour Court was that the appellant establishment had retrenched the services of the respondent due to bona fide reorganiza tion. I am not impressed with his contention. No doubt in the letter terminating the services of the respondent, dated 21st March, 1978 it is stated that the services of the respondent were being terminated because the post of Ring Jobber, which he was holding, had been abolished due to re‑organization in the mills, but I view this document with suspicion, as has been done by the learned Labour Court, despite the fact that it bears the signature of the respondent. Though the said letter, according to the appellant establishment, is‑said to be the duplicate of the original copy, which was delivered to the respondent, surprisingly enough it has been written in ink, with hand, and on a plain paper and not on the letter‑head of the appellant corporation. It was contended by Mr. Zamirul Hassan that all correspondence in the mills was done in hand as there is no typewriter in the appellant establishment. This contention does not appear to be true for the letter, dated 10th August, 1978 addressed by the Manager of the appellant establishment to the Assistant Director Labour is a typed letter and is on the letterhead of the appellant establishment. With this letter, the Manager bad forwarded the list of its employees to the Labour Direc torate. A perusal of that list contradicts the assertion of the establishment that they had abolished the posts of Jobbers for a Head Jobber as well as several jobbers were continuing to appellant establishment. Mr. Zamirul Hassan tried to contend process of elimination/replacement of jobbers by more qualified in the appellant establishment was gradual and the first change was made in the Ring Department. Unfortunately for him the evidence on record does not support his contention. It has been admitted by the Labour Officer of the appellant establishment that Abdul Rehman, Karim Dad, Umer Din, Arfin and Hazrat Bilal are shown in. the salary register as jobbers, alongwith respondent Abdul Rehman, in the Ring Department, for the month of March, 1978 and further for the month of April, 1978 the names of the said persons, except that of respondent, were shown in the said Register as Supervisors. This show that, on the one hand, only the services of the respondent were terminated and on the other hand, under the cloak of re‑organization, the other jobbers were re‑designated as supervisors. Furthermore, though the re‑organization process is said to have been started in March, 1978 even uptill 10th August, 1978 when the list of employees in the appellant establishment was furnished by the Manager of the establishment to the Labour Department the posts of jobbers still continued to exist therein and were being held by different persons. I am, therefore, satisfied that there was no real re‑organization in the appellant establishment and the pica of re‑organization has been taken merely to get rid of the services of the respondent evidently for extraneous reasons.

5. For the reasons stated by me above, I would concur in the view taken by the learned Labour Court and dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed.