1996 PLP 371 (PLC(CS))

5. The Job Description Letter dated 16‑2‑1989 in respect of Grade‑III Officer shows that his nature of duties included handling of security documents, supervising the manual staff, doing special assignment work entrusted by the Senior Officers and supervising Junior Officers working there. Particularly letter dated 16‑2‑1989 given to Mr. Najeeb Saad regarding his Job Description is as under:‑‑ "Mr. Najeeb Saad, Officer Grade‑Ill, will be the Incharge of Office Service Section. He will supervise and will be responsible for the following: (1) Security of the premises and the assets of the Corporation; (2) Management of communications (telephone, telex); (3) Inward and outward receipt and despatch of letters and other articles; (4) Delivery and collection of cheques and other communications to the banks and clients; (5) Maintenance and cleanliness of the office premises; (6) Special assignments from time to time by the Senior Officer; (7) He will supervise Mrs. Neelofar, who will report to him. Once in a month he will make a report if he thinks necessary to S.V.P. regarding her performance etc.

6. The only other point is regarding the number of workers. According to the appellant there were 22 persons from the category of workers and 11 persons from the category of Officers. On the other hand according to the management there were 8 workers and 24 Officers.

7. Mirza Rashid Rehmen Baig, Executive Vice‑President in his affidavit- in‑evidence has stated that keeping in view the financial business activities of the company and the nature of work involved, the management's system substantially entrusted hiring of supervisory, administrative and managerial grade staff. That as such the respondent's establishment consisted 25 Officers and 8 workmen. That the appellant was in Grade‑II at the time of termination and not an Assistant or a workman. The Attendance Register for the month of July, 1989 has been produced by him showing the names and designations of the 8 workmen by the establishment. The witness has stated that the appellant has mentioned even the names of Grades‑I, II and III Officers of the company as workman whereas such officers do not perform any clerical or manual work and their duties are of supervisory and managerial nature. The list of these 24 Officers has been given with their nature of work. The Office Attendance Register shows only 8 workers who have signed their attendance every day.

8. I am, therefore, inclined to believe that the appellant was an officer and not a workman and the establishment employee only 8 workers the rest being officers, the I.R.O. and the Standing Orders Ordinance would not therefore be applicable to the case of the appellant and if he is aggrieved, he can seek redress under the civil law, as may be available to him.

9. The order of the Labour Court is maintained and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./22/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.