2017 PLP 13 (PLC N)

JUSTICE Ch. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, CHAIRMAN.

This appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment dated 20.06.2014 passed by the learned Punjab Labour Court No.IV, Faisalabad.

2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in grievance petition are that the appellant was an employee of Dare-e-Arqam Boys High School since 2000. He was terminated from service on 1.10.2012, vide letter dated 5.10.2012 with the remarks "he resigned from service on 1.10.2012". Further contended that the appellant had not tendered his resignation at all. Infact his services were terminated w.e.f. 1.10.2012. Before termination no prior notice was issued. No opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the appellant. No gratuity fund/provident fund/ pension/old age benefit was paid to the appellant. Further contended that on 5.10.2012, the appellant was asked to sign blank paper but the appellant refused to sign, whereupon the appellant was handed over a certificate on 5.10.2012. In fact the appellant was illegally removed from service. Hence, grievance petition be accepted and the appellant be reinstated in service with full back benefits.

3. The said grievance petition was contested by the respondent on the ground that the appellant did not fall within the definition of workman. The appellant has got no cause of action and as such this Court has no jurisdiction to try the matter. A senior teacher Hafiz Zaid Mehmood had been appointed against the post vacated by the appellant. On merits, respondent contended that the appellant was not removed from service and rather he himself resigned from service on the ground that he had got better job and he requested for character certificate which was issued accordingly. The appellant left the job with his own freewill and the instant appeal being false and frivolous merit dismissal. Learned Labour Court after hearing the preliminary arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, accepted the grievance petition on the ground that the appellant had not tendered his resignation. The respondent was directed to reinstate the appellant in service, vide order dated 25.9.2013. The respondent preferred an appeal against the said order dated 25.9.2013 and in appeal, Labour Tribunal, Lahore set aside the order dated 25.9.2013 and remanded the case for afresh decision in accordance with law on the issue whether appellant is a teacher, and if so whether Labour Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon his grievance petition.

4. Learned Labour Court after hearing both the parties decided the grievance petition in the following terms:- "Nutshell of the above discussion is that the petitioner is a "school teacher". Being a school teacher, he can not claim himself as "workman" and as such he is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. This petition, therefore, can not bear fruit and the same is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction."

5. Hence this appeal on the grounds mentioned therein.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia, contended that no managerial or administration job was ever assigned to the appellant which was the touch stone under the definition of worker given in the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 section 2(xxxi) which speaks as under:-- "worker" and "workman" mean a person not falling within the definition of employer who is employed (including employment as a supervisor or as an apprentice) in an establishment or industry for hire or reward either directly or through a contractor whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and, for the purpose of any proceedings under the Act in relation to an industrial dispute includes a person who has been dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid-off or otherwise removed from employment in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge, retrenchment, lay-off, or removal has led to that dispute but does not include any person who is employed mainly in managerial or administrative capacity." Thus the main essential of worker, are given are three in number given below:- i. He should not be employer. ii. He should have no managerial capacity. iii. He should have not administrative capacity. Thus the appellant falls in the ambit of workman even as per definition in Section 2(xxxi) of the PIRA, 2010. The employer admitted himself that the appellant was workman as per following document on record. a. Respondent subscribed every month social security as workman for the social security institution. b. Further even subscription to employees Old Age Benefits (EOBI) who had issued registration card being workman of the employer. and prayed that appeal be accepted as prayed and impugned judgment be set aside.

7. Conversely learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and argued in favour of the impugned judgment.

8. Arguments heard. Record perused.

9. To decide the controversy between the parties, the documentary evidence produced by the parties was examined. Exh.R-1 is a certificate which was issued by the Administration Dare-e-Arqam Boys High School on 5.10.2012, in which it was categorically stated that the appellant had been teaching in the school since January, 2000 and he resigned from his service on 1.10.2012. Exh.R-3 is a bank certificate issued by the Habib Bank Limited which highlights that the salary of 17 teachers including the appellant used to be deposited in the bank. The name of appellant was placed at serial number fifteen of Exh.-3. Similarly Exh.R-4 is attendance register for the period September, 2012 which show the attendance of appellant as Arabic teacher. All the above documents remained unrebutted.

10. The name of appellant was mentioned as Arabic Teacher in all the documents produced and Exhibition by the respondent school. The documentary evidence produced by the appellant i.e. Exh.P-3 and Mark-B are of no importance because, the appellant in his grievance petition, affidavit Ex.P1, statement as PW1, no where mentioned that what was his status in school or on which post he was employed. This show the mala fide of the appellant.

11. The documentary evidence produced by the respondent side proved this fact beyond any shadow of doubt that the appellant was teacher of Arabic in the respondent institution. It is a settle law that contents of documents could-not be rebutted by oral evidence.

12. Now the question remains that whether a teacher falls in the definition of workman.

13. A teacher could not be termed as workman. He is builder of society. His job is of supervising nature. He commands classes of hundreds of students. Express their opinion in the administration and welfare of students as well as institution.

14. Learned Punjab Labour Court No.IV, Faisalabad has discussed this issue in a broad sense and concrete manner and passed a well reasoned order which do not need any interference. Therefore, appeal is dismissed. WA/10/PLT Appeal dismissed.