1981 PLP 723 (PLC(CS))

2. According to the averments made by the appellant himself in his grievance petition, he was originally employed in the respondent‑Corporation as Works Officer, later promoted as Assistant Engineer and subsequently promoted as Executive Engineer. It also appears from the instructions given by the appellant to his Assistant Engineer on 16th July 1978 that there are supervisors working under the Assistant Engineer. The appellant, thus, was four steps higher in status the Supervisors entrusted with the supervision of works. Apart from this, there is no evidence to show that the appellant was employed to do any manual or clerical work, whether skilled or unskilled, which is an essential require ment under the Standing Orders Ordinance. Even the appellant himself has not stated either in his grievance petition or in his evidence before the Labour Court that he was employed to do any such type of work. All that he has asserted in his affidavit before the learned Labour Court is that he was not performing any supervisory or managerial duties. This claim appears to be quite unfounded. According to the appellant's affidavit itself, the appellant was required to visit the site and used to give instructions to the Assistant Engineer Incharge as to how the works are to be executed. This is made further clear from the Memo, dated 16th July 1978 addressed by the appellant to the Assistant Engineer, which reads as follows Assistant Engineer (Engg.) Subject: Flooring on the roof of Fokker Hangar During my inspection on the roof of Fokker Hangar, where the work of laying screening 1:2:4 on the roof is not upto the required standard and specification with the result that there is heavy leak age of rain water. I have observed that you have not inspected the site of work as a result of which your Supervisor is not paying attention towards this important work. (Sd.) S. Masood Akhtar, Executive Engineer (Maint.)."

3. It is thus clear that the appellant was not employed to do any manual or clerical work but his main duties were of a supervisory nature. It has been held by this Tribunal in the case of Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited v. Fatehullah Fahim, decided on 20th August 1979, that an Assistant Executive Engineer employed in the Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation cannot be considered to be workman for the purposes of Standing Orders as he performs supervisory functions and has not to do any manual or clerical work. The case of the appellant is much weaker in that he is an Executive Engineer, a post one step, higher then that of Assistant Executive Engineer.

4. The appellant also cannot be considered to be a workman for the purposes of the I.R.O. as admittedly I.R.O. is not applicable to the respondent corporation in view of the Notification, dated 9th September 1976.,

3. The appellant's grievance petition, accordingly, is not maintain able. I would, therefore, uphold the order of the learned Labour Court and dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed,