2001 PLP 521 (PLC)

Muhammad Humayun for Appellant. Rana Mehmood Ali Khan, Representative for Respondents. Dissatisfied with the order dated 28‑8‑1999 of Sindh Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad whereby the grievance petition of, the Respondent Bashir Ahmad was allowed the Appellant Company. M/s Amin Textile Mills Limited S.I.T.E., Kotri hive come in this appeal. The respondent Bashir Ahmed entered service of the Appellant Company as Foreman of its Air Condition Section it! supervisory capacity. Though he worked to the entire satisfaction of the Management of the Company, yet on 14‑4‑1997 when he reached office he was refused to be taken on duty and was informed verbally that he had been dismissed. Hearing this, he sent grievance notice to the Appellant Company for his reinstatement and back benefits but his grievance remained unredressed. He, therefore, filed grievance petition on 26‑9‑1999 with the above result.

2. In the written reply the Appellant Company denied the respondent's allegations, stating further that the respondent himself chose to remain absent from his duty for the reasons best known to him. When he was asked to collect his dues he refused point blank and instead filed grievance petition. The Appellant Company‑took a plea that the respondent was not a workman and therefore, could not avail the benefit of section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.

3. Muhammad Jaffar, Labour Officer of the Appellant Company filed his affidavit‑in‑evidence in support of the Appellant's case whereas the respondent Bashir Ahmed filed his affidavit‑in‑evidence in his case. The relevant documents were also filed by the parties. I have heard the Advocates of both the parties. Mr. Muhammad Humayun for the Appellant Company and Rana Mehmood Ali Khan for the respondent and with their help I have also perused the relevant documents.

4. The important point on which the fate of the case depended was whether respondent Bashir Ahmad was a workman. The admitted position is that he was appointed as Foreman of the Air Condition Section of the Appellant Company. According to Muhammad Jaffar, the Company's Labour Officer admitted in course of his cross‑examination that though duties of the respondent were not incorporated in his Appointment Order yet as a Foreman he had the power of making appointments, granting leave to his subordinates and also charge‑sheeting them. Apart from this, the perusal of Written Reply submitted on behalf of the Appellant Company shows that the respondent was not doing any manual or clerical work but he was rather engaged in supervisory work, supervising the work of one Fitter, one Pipe Fitter, one Assistant Fitter, three Operators and four Helpers. Thus, as many as 10 workers were performing their duties under his supervision. His appointment and working as Foreman in the Air Condition Section of the Appellant Mills is admitted even by the respondent himself in course of his cross‑examination. It is also admitted by him that the workers of aforesaid designation were working with him in the same Section though he avoided giving his admission that they were working under him. However, in the same breath he admitted that they all worked together jointly. It is a matter of commonsense that when so many workers were working together in the particular Section, some or the other of them must have been given the duty of supervising the others' work. Since the respondent was admittedly a Foreman amongst them, the rest of the workers were naturally working under his supervision. This is supported by the authority reported as 1981 PLC 969 wherein it was held by my learned Predecessor Justice (Recd.) Z.A. Channa as under:‑‑ "I, accordingly, am of the view that learned Labour Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant was a Foreman and thus, was not entitled to file or maintain grievance petition as he did not fall within the definition of workman as given in the Standing Orders and that further he was not required or employed to do any manual or clerical work." I am in respectful agreement with above views of my learned Predecessor. However, my reference was invited also to the decision of my another learned Predecessor Justice (Recd.) Kazi Mushtak Ali reported as 1997 PLC 443 and 1996 PLC 182 in which he held Foreman as workman because even as Foreman he was doing manual work and was not assigned any supervisory power. I regret my inability to change my above view. It appears that in these two cases, unlike the previous case decided by Justice (Retd.) Z.A. Channa irrespective of being a Foreman the employee continued to do manual labour. Thus, to some extent these latter cases are distinguishable from earlier one. Even otherwise I am of firm view that Foreman was not a workman and if he did some manual work, it may be incidental to his main supervisory job. Accordingly the respondent Bashir Ahmad whose appointment was made in the Appellant Company as Foreman was not a workman within the meaning of aforesaid Labour Laws and therefore, the grievance petition filed by him under section 25‑A, I.R.O. was not maintainable. Having arrived at this conclusion it may perhaps, be futile to go into further discussion on the point as to whether the said respondent deserted his duties himself as per plea of the Appellant Company or his services were terminated by verbal order as stated by the respondent himself. Whatever be the manner in which he had to leave his service he could not file the grievance petition as he did challenging his ouster from service because as has been held above that by virtue of his appointment as Foreman, he was not a workman. As a result of above findings the judgment of the Lower Court is set aside and the appeal is consequently allowed. H.B.T./50/K(L.Trib) Appeal allowed.