1970 PLP 733 (PLC)

SIDDIKY, C. J.‑In this application the petitioner‑company, viz. Pakistan National Oils Limited; has challenged the validity of the order passed by the Second Labour Court, East Pakistan, on 15‑10‑1968, in Complaint Case No. 152 of 1968.' One Wahidur Rahman, respondent No. 3 in this application, was serving as a Supervisor in the petitioner‑company since, a 1‑1‑1965. On completion of his probationary period he was made permanent. On 29‑1‑1968 the petitioner‑company termi nated the services of the respondent No. 3 with effect from that date by its letter dated 26‑1‑1968 without assigning any reason. The respondent No. 3 filed ‑Complaint Case No. 152 of 1968 before the Second Labour Court and prayed for termination benefits under section 19 of the East Pakistan Employment of labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965. The petitioner‑company entered appearance and contended that the complainant Wahidur Rahman, Ex‑Supervisor of the Company, was not a worker within the definition of clause 2(v) of the Standing Orders Act, 1965 and as such his petition for complaint was not maintainable before the Second Labour Court. They also contended that he was not entitled to any benefit under section 19 of the Act. The learned Second Labour Court in a very ‑short judgment without assigning any reason whatsoever has held that since the petitioner company has canceded that respondent No. 3 Wahidur Rahman, an Ex‑Supervisor of the Company did not perform any managerial or administrative work and was only a Terminal Supervisor and. has no power to appoint or dismiss any of his subordinate he was entitled to the benefits under section 19 of the Act which is only available to a worker. It seems from the judgment of the Second Labour Court that ht has misconceived the definition of both the worker and that of employee of the supervisory ‑category. It is admitted by both parties and is also found by the learned Labour Court that the respondent No. 3 was a Supervisor and from the memorandum of duties and respon sibilities dated 24th August 1965, given by the Company to the respondent No. 3, which has been marked Annexure "E" to the petition, it is also found that the nature of the duties and respon sibilities of the respondent No. 3 was that of a supervisory character, and none of the clauses of that Memorandum can be interpreted to mean that the nature of his work would bring him within the definition of `worker'. The learned Labour Court is wholly wrong in finding that whatever the designation or category of office that an employee may hold unless he has the power to appoint or dismiss he cannot be kept out of the definition of `worker'. In P L D 1970 Dacca 712, which we have just disposed of, we had the occasion of considering the judgment of Mr. Nurul Abedin, the Presiding Officer of the Second Labour Court wherein the same set of reasoning though a little elaborate, was given by him in defining a worker. The reasons that we have given in that judgment of ours in rejecting the reasoning given by the learned Judge holds good in the present case as well. All that we needs say in this application is that mere absence of power, in discharging duties of a Supervisor or Manager or Administrator, of appointment and dismissal does not exclude him from the category of the excluded persons as A mentioned in sub‑clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (v) of section 2 of the Standing Orders Act, 1965. From the facts, found, we are of the view that the respondent No. 3 in the, present case was not a worker within the definition of section 2(v) of the Act and as such he was not entitled to the benefits under section 19 of the Act. At the time of termination of his services, the petitioner company, we are informed, paid him one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice in accordance with the terms of appoint ment and that satisfies the requirement of law. In the result, the application succeeds and the rules made absolute without any order as to costs. K. HASSAIN, J.‑

I agree. A. X. Rule made absolute