1995 PLP 3 (PLC)

5. It is to be seen that the appointment of the appellant took place as a Supervisor and later he was promoted as a Cane Inspector. He has stated that his duties were not supervisory in nature and he was all along performing manual and clerical duties which were as follows:‑‑ "(a) To fill up the loan forms in respect of 300‑400 growers of the sector who used to obtain loan facilities. (b) To fill up agreement forms to be executed between the grower and the Mill Management. (c) To prepare and issue delivery orders to growers for fertilizers/seeds and pesticides/insecticides. (d) To pay regular visits to the cane fields in the sector and prepare yield estimation reports of all the growers of the sector numbering 300‑400 growers. (e) To bring cane samples from the fields to the factory for checking of sucrose contents etc. and to conduct other analysis. (f) To perform physical field survey of 40% growers twice in a season which numbered to 200 growers."

7. In his cross‑examination he admitted that there were 18 Cane Inspectors working in the mill and only 7 out of them were senior to him. On his own showing the growers came with prepared applications themselves. But he denied that the rest of the papers were prepared by the staff of Agriculture Manager. It was put to him that the duty of the Cane Inspector was only to report to the Agriculture Manager as to how much cultivation had been raised by the growers, but the same came to he denied. As against this Nazir Ahmed Panwar the witness of the respondent has detailed the duties of the Cane Inspector, in these words: "That a Cane Inspector is required to supervise the work of the Cane Supervisor and field workers and to survey the crop of the Abadgar of the wheat and keep the Agriculture Manager informed about the position." He has categorically stated that a Cane Inspector had nothing to do with the filing of the application for the grant of loan or the supply of fertilizers. It was the function of his Offices and any report or returns submitted by him, which according to him, in the cross‑examination was to prepare survey reports of sugarcane twice in a season was only incidental to his main job.

8. To determine whether an employee is a workman or holding an office of supervisory nature the pith and the substance of duties only has to be seen and not duties of ancillary or incidental nature performed by him. There is no reason to look askance at the version supplied by the witness of the respondent and I agree with the learned Presiding Officer that the petition does not lie.

9. On the showing of the appellant himself the special increments were not being paid to him after 31‑12‑1987 and the letter dated 2‑2‑1988 had clearly mentioned that he was to get an increment of Rs.80 only on his earlier pay which was Rs.1,

240. All that the appellant had done thereafter as he states, was to make representations and the three applications sent by him were also very much belated. The cause of action had arisen on the receipt of this letter dated 2‑2‑1988 and under section 25‑A of the IRO, he had to be moving in the matter within the stipulated period. The first application which he professes to have made was on 8‑6‑1988. The appellant had to reckon with the bar of limitation and there is nothing to save him from its mischief.

10. It was further contended on behalf of the respondents, that the relief sought was in regard to the continuance of the special increase which does not constitute any guaranteed right. Mr. Talpur referred to an earlier decision of this Tribunal namely Thatta Sugar Mills v. Amanullah 1988 PLC page

773. It is on all fours with the dispute in issue,

11. Otherwise too, the special increase was not in accordance with the rules and the order granting the same was subject to the approval of the Head office which was never forthcoming. What is more, the said order of increment was withdrawn by the Chairman himself

12. I am therefore of the opinion that the petition was rightly dismissed by the Presiding Officer and I will affirm the murder and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2353/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.