1997 PLP 243 (PLC)
AER RIANTA INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI Versus Syed AMIR KHURSHEED
| Citation | 1997 PLP 243 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | AER RIANTA INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI Versus Syed AMIR KHURSHEED |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 243 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 243 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 243 (PLC) (AER RIANTA INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI Versus Syed AMIR KHURSHEED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. M. Jamil, Bar‑at‑Law for Appellant.
- Muhammad Ali Mazhar for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st March, 1996.
- 4. The main argument of Ch. Jamil, Advocate for the appellant Company is that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction because the respondent's job was of Managerial nature and he was not performing clerical or manual functions of a workman.
- 10. It has, on the other hand, been argued by Mr. Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Advocate for the respondent that Mr. Ali Hyder was the Manager Sales in the Duty Free Shop and the respondent worked under him and performed duties as workman. That he had to supervise the movement of the trollies from the Stores then to the Security Check and lastly up to delivery to the customer. This does not make him a workman. It is not the designation nor the amount of remuneration that has to be considered but the criterion E depends on the nature of work. It has not been shown that he was handling the goods, placing them on trollies or taking out the goods from the trollies to hand over to the customers. There were helpers under him who do that job. It has not, therefore, been established that the Sales Executive was a clerk or manual worker. He was, obviously, an Officer and the Industrial Relations Ordinance and the Standing Orders Ordinance had no application to him. Under the circumstances the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to consider the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25‑A of the I.R.O.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 2(xxviii)‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(i)‑‑‑Workmen‑‑‑Criteria‑‑ Nature of work and not designation‑‑‑If an employee claimed that he was a worker or workman, the burden of proof was always on him and not on employers‑‑‑If the nature of duties of employee were managerial or supervisory, it would not make any difference if he also performed any clerical or manual work ancillary or incidental to such duties‑‑‑It was not the designation of employee, but the criteria would depend on the nature of work. 1992 SCMR 227 ref.
Judgment & Decree
4. The main argument of Ch. Jamil, Advocate for the appellant Company is that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction because the respondent's job was of Managerial nature and he was not performing clerical or manual functions of a workman.
5. On examination of the evidence recorded in this case the point raised by Mr. Jamil does not appear to be without substance. The order of appointment of the respondent, dated 1‑2‑1993, reads as under: "With reference to your application and subsequent interview we are pleased to appoint you as 'SALES EXECUTIVE' in Aer Rianta International (Pvt.) Limited with effect from 25‑1‑1993. (1) The company shall pay you monthly remuneration of Rs.3,250. (2) You will serve the company in the capacity of Sales Executive. (3) You will be on probation for a period of six months. (4) On confirmation you will be at liberty to leave on one month notice and the company will be at liberty to determine your services by giving you 30 days notice or one month consolidated salary in lieu thereof. (5) Your services are liable to be terminated if you are guilty of any misconduct etc. and such other conditions."
6. By letter, dated 25‑7‑1993 the respondent was confirmed and his Gross Salary was raised to Rs.4,
000. The terms and conditions in the appointment letter were to continue.
7. If an employee claims in any petition that he is a worker or workman the burden of proof is always on him and not on the management. A If the nature of his duties are Managerial or Supervisory it shall not make any difference if he also performs any clerical or manual work ancillary or. incidental to such duties.
8. In the present case Mr. Ch. Jamil for the appellant company has referred to the ruling in Brooke Bond case reported in 1992 SCMR 227 that a workman should do "predominantly" manual or clerical work. If in course of his employment of supervisory nature he has also to do partly clerical or manual work that will not make him a workman. It is the major duty that decides the status.
9. The respondent in this case has admitted in his evidence that he was appointed as Sales Executive, confirmed in the managerial cadre and assigned the duties to monitor the movement of goods from the security check to the final delivery to the customer. He has, however, stated that his duties was also on delivery‑counter to receive the invoices from the passengers.
10. It has, on the other hand, been argued by Mr. Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Advocate for the respondent that Mr. Ali Hyder was the Manager Sales in the Duty Free Shop and the respondent worked under him and performed duties as workman. That he had to supervise the movement of the trollies from the Stores then to the Security Check and lastly up to delivery to the customer. This does not make him a workman. It is not the designation nor the amount of remuneration that has to be considered but the criterion E depends on the nature of work. It has not been shown that he was handling the goods, placing them on trollies or taking out the goods from the trollies to hand over to the customers. There were helpers under him who do that job. It has not, therefore, been established that the Sales Executive was a clerk or manual worker. He was, obviously, an Officer and the Industrial Relations Ordinance and the Standing Orders Ordinance had no application to him. Under the circumstances the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to consider the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25‑A of the I.R.O.
11. The order of the Labour Court is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed. H.B.T./82/Lb.S Appeal allowed.