1993 PLP 1044 (PLC(CS))

4. The various contentions raised in the petition came to be denied in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent. Inter alia it was stated therein, that he was an Officer Incharge of Transport and Security and at the relevant time was drawing a salary of Rs.15,920 per month.

5. The petitioner was his own witness and there were 2 witnesses on behalf of the respondents, namely Waheed Usman Sakrani, Personnel Manager and Muhammad Rafiq a clerk of the respondent‑Bank.

6. The Labour Court missed the petition on the short ground that the petitioner was not a workman and therefore, it had no jurisdiction in the matter.

7. The petitioner in his evidence maintained that he was carrying on the duties as detailed in the statement, which were of a clerical nature. He however conceded that he was getting a pay of Rs. 15,920 per month which "included Car Allowance, Entertainment Allowance and also Servant Salary etc. etc. "' He had also gone on to add that "I also used to get leave Fair Assistance. I was also given facilities of furniture and Air‑conditioner at my residence". He had to admit in cross‑examination that Security Guards and Drivers were working under him and he used to recommend and forward their leave applications. A number of those applications were produced which bore his signature. He had also to admit that he could not produce any proof to show that he was doing clerical or manual work with the respondent.

8. Waheed Usman Sakrani has detailed the job description of the applicant, which had earlier been mentioned also in the written reply. The same was as follows: ‑ "(a) Taking disciplinary action against his subordinates as Officer Incharge Transport and Security. (b) Recommendation of leave application of his subordinates in Transport, Security, Mail Room including Telex and Telephone Room. (c) Supervision and checking of work done by his subordinates in Transport and Security Department. (d) Smooth and proper functioning of Transport and Security Department. (e) To distribute, control and supervise the work of the Transport, Security, Mail Room including Telex and Telephone Room. (f) To suggest the ways and means to the management for smooth, proper and better functioning of the Transport and Security Department. (g) To maintain punctuality and regularity in attendance within the Transport and Security Department of the staff working under his control and supervision. (h) That the applicant was personally responsible with regard to the proper and efficient discharge of duties of the employees working in Transport, Security, Mail Room including Telex and Telephone Room."

9. He has also detailed the various facilities provided to the applicant apart from the various loans granted to him. It was further stated by him that the Security Guards, Drivers and other workers of Transport, Security, Mail Room sections including Telex and Telephone Room were all working under the control and supervision of the petitioner and he used to recommend their leave applications. Some of those were produced on the record. He also added that the petitioner used to order for the deduction of the salary of the staff working under him if they remained absent from duty, and some documents were mentioned in support of his contention. Nothing. worthwhile could be elicited from him in his cross‑examination.

10. Muhammad Rafiq who was in the Security Department also lent support to the version of Waheed Usman Sakrani in regard to the supervision and control of the petitioner in the Security Department.

11. There can be no manner of doubt that the petitioner was an officer with standing. It was therefore for him to discharge the burden which rested on him. In pith and substance the duties being performed by him were not of routine and clerical nature, and even if otherwise, were supervisory in nature. Therefore looking to the principles laid down in the cases of National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others (1993 SCMR 672), Shahi Bottlers v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others (1993 SCMR 1370) and General Manager, Hotel Intercontinental, Lahore and another v. Bashir A. Malik and others (PLD 1985 SC 103), the conclusion reached by the Labour Court is unexceptionable. I will, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2221/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.