1981 PLP 549 (PLC)

Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Appellant. N. R. Dubash for Respondent. Date of hearing : 31st March, 1981. The appellant claims that he was employed in the capacity of a permanent workman with the respondent‑Company, on wages at the rate of Rs. 25 per day, but he was laid off with effect from 5th January, 1978. The appellant lodged a complaint with the Directorate of Labour Welfare against his lay-off and a meeting was convened by the Labour Directorate which was attended both by the appellant and the Managing Director of the respondent-Company, Mr. Mohammad Hussain. At that meeting Mr. Mohammad Hussain agreed to call the appellant for job subject to no objection from his (worker's) colleagues. It appears that nothing came out from the negotiations and accordingly the appellant filed a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court on 10th May, 1978. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition on the grounds, firstly, that being a watchman, he was not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders and hence his grievance petition was not maintainable under clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25-A, I. R. O., secondly, that the grievance petition was time-barred and invalid in that the requisite grievance notice was served after the expiry of 3 months from 5th January, 1978 when the appellant was laid oft' by the respondent-Company, and that finally, the appellant was a casual employee and the question of his removal from service or the laying off does not arise. Aggrieved by this decision the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

2. This Tribunal has repeatedly held that a watchman who is not employed to do any other duties involving manual or clerical work, is not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders and is not entitled to maintain a grievance petition under clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25-A, I. R. O. The latest decision in this behalf is in the case of Badar Zaman Khan v. Messrs Pifzers Laboratories Ltd., decided on 24th October, 1980. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, the learned Representative for the appellant, however, sought to rely upon the decision of their Lord ships of the Supreme Court in the case of Messrs Abro Salt & Chemical Works v. Chairman, Second West Pakistan Industrial Court, Karachi. In support of his contention that a watchman is employed to do unskilled labour and consequently is a workman for the purpose of the Standing Orders. The decision, which is unreported, however, does not support the contention of Mr. Ashraf Hussain. No doubt, in that case, their Lordships have held that the employee concerned was a workman but it was upon the evidence that he was employed to do physical work. The discussion on this issue in the judgment is as follows :- "Upon the basis of the evidence laid before the industrial trial Court it was found that respondent No. 2 did work with his own hand by dig ging the heap up to the arms length and up to the width of one foot 'in order to perform his duties. Both the Courts, accordingly, held that Respondent No. 2 was a workman. In any event he certainly falls within the terms 'skilled or unskilled' labour."

3. In the instant case, there is no evidence to show that the appellant was employed to do any manual or clerical work, whether skilled or un skilled, in addition to the duties of a watchman. On that score alone e therefore, the appeal of the appellant must fail.

4. I would also agree with the view of the learned Labour Court that the grievance petition of the appellant is not maintainable as the requisite grievance notice was not served by the appellant upon his employer within time. It is the case of the appellant himself, as disclosed in his grievance petition, that he was laid off with effect from 5th January, 1978. As such, he should have brought his grievance to the notice of the employer in writ ing within 3 months of the aforesaid date. However, the grievance notice is dated 23rd April, 1978 which was more than 3 months after the grievance had arisen, No doubt, the appellant had brought his grievance to the notice of the Directorate of Labour Welfare, but bringing the matter to the notice of the Labour Directorate cannot be considered compliance with the mandatory requirements of law that the aggrieved worker. must bring his grievance to the notice of the employer in writing, within 3 months.

5. In view of the above discussion, I find it unnecessary to discuss the further question whether the appellant was a casual worker, and if so whether he fails within the definition of a worker under the Labour Laws.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.