1970 PLP 137 (PLC)

Irshad Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner. Ch. Altaf Hussain for Respondent. M. JAMIL ASGHAR (CHAIRMAN).‑Muhammad Yaqub petitioner was employed as a Chemist in the Mills of the respondent known as Punjab Vegetable Ghee and General Mills Ltd., Lahore, on 22‑6‑1963. From the year 1967, be started getting a salary of Rs. 1,000 per month. On 28‑4‑1969, the petitioner received a fresh appointment letter from the Managing Director of the Mills to the effect that from 17‑4‑1969, his status was reduced to that of a probationer, removable from service without notice. The other employees of the respondent's concern, who had also been treated in a similar way, agitated the matter before the respondent vide joint notice representation on 3‑5‑1969. The respondent under a mistaken belief that the petitioner was also responsible for sending the notice representa tion issued a frivolous charge‑sheet and dismissed him from service, with effect from 13‑5‑1969. The petitioner served a notice on the respondent on 14‑5‑1969 that the services of the petitioner could have only been terminated by giving him one month's prior notice or one month's notice pay amounting to Rs. 1,000 in lieu thereof. He also claimed gratuity at the rate of 15 days' salary per year for six completed years of service amounting to Rs. 3,000 but the respondent refused to comply with the demands vide his letter dated 30‑5‑1969. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner has now preferred the present petition under Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, praying that the respondent be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000 to him. It was also prayed that the respondent be burdened with costs. This petition was resisted and one of the preliminary objections taken by the respondent was that as the petitioner was a Chemist incharge of the factory and holding an administrative and Managerial post at a monthly salary of Rs. 1,000, he was not a workman as defined in the Industrial and Commercial Employ ment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Before dealing with the other preliminary objections as well as the petition on merits we decided to hear arguments as to whether the petitioner is a workman as defined under section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Section 2(i) reads as follows :‑ " `Workman' means any person employed in any Industrial or commercial establishment to do any skilled or unskilled manual or commercial `labour' for hire or reward." In support of his contention, the respondent relied on a decision by the Industrial Court in the case R. M. Ikram v. Dalmia cement Factory Ltd., Jhelum (1963 P L C 973), wherein it was held that the petitioner, who was a Chemist was not a workman under the statute and as such his petition was dismissed. In the present case the petitioner was admittedly a Chemist and therefore, it cannot be denied that he was holding a Supervisory position, because he was responsible for maintaining the correct process involved in the production of Ghee and as such his dunes must have included the supervision of work of testors and sample boys employed in the laboratory. In view of the above we are constrained to hold that the petitioner is not a workman under section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing orders) Ordinance, 1968, and dismiss this petition.