1994 PLP 351 (PLC)

The petitioner was appointed by the respondent Sugar Mill as a Junior Clerk in 1977, and was promoted as Senior Clerk and thereafter as a Store Keeper. On or about the 16th of May, 1989 he was further promoted to the post of Store Officer. This did not go without protest on the part of the petitioner. However, he was informed that he could not be sent back to his earlier post as the same stood abolished.

2. On the 10th of April, 1991 his services came to be terminated "due to reduced load of work". He was given two months salary in lieu of notice.

3. The petitioner had sent a grievance notice. Later came the petition before the Labour Court.

4. The respondents in their reply statement challenged the maintainability of the petition on the ground that he was not a workman and denied the other allegations including his involvement with the union activities.

5. The petitioner was his own witness and Ibadur Rehman, Administrative Manager appeared on behalf of the respondent.

6. The Labour Court for the reasons given by it allowed the petition with full back benefits culminating in this appeal.

7. The main question for consideration in this appeal will be whether the present respondent was a workman or not? There is no dispute that he had worked as a Store Officer for well nigh 3 years. He had not only severed his membership of the union but had formed an Officers Association, of which had become the General Secretary. The Officers Association as stated by him (which can be easily imagined) "consisted of management and officers exercising control in the management".

8. It is also an admitted position that the change over had given him a raise of Rs.236 to 250 per month and he had been given Grade IV‑A as against Grade VII. His consolidated salary had become Rs.1,694 per month, the basic salary being Rs.1,050.

9. The nature of his duties will have to be gone into next as it is a trite proposition of law that it is not the designation but the nature of duties which is the deciding factor. If the same are manual or clerical, skilled or unskilled, the employee would be a workman (see Hotel International and another v. Bashir A. Malik PLD 1986 SC 103, Abdul Razzaq v. Messrs Ihsan Sons Limited and 2 others 1992 PLC 424, Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills v. Muhammad Abdul Ghani 1979 SCMR 304).

10. The respondent did not say in the petition anything more than that he was performing duties of clerical and manual in nature and continued on doing the same even while he was designated as the Store Officer. However, in his affidavit‑in‑evidence he added that he used to make entries in the Register of Stores for receipt and delivery of various articles and equipment at Store and was also required to maintain the relevant record including the requisition slips. The Store Superintendent and the Deputy Superintendent of Store were supervising the work. However, in his cross‑examination he admitted that there were 4 helpers and 2 or 3 clerks in the Store Department and that it was the duty of the clerks to make the entries in the Register in regard to the receiving and delivery of stores. It appears that parts of machinery and different household items for the use of the employees houses in the Labour Colony used to be kept in the Store. Naturally it required a lot of vigil and control. There were helpers to attend to the manual duties and there were clerks to take care of making entries in the registers and issuing vouchers. The duties of the respondent in the circumstances were primarily supervisory in nature and writing work if any at all could only be incidental or ancillary.

11. He admitted that he belonged to‑ the Officers class. It was for him to shift the burden by proving that he was engaged in manual or clerical duties (See Shahi Bottlers (Private) Limited v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1993 SCMR 1370. Muhammad Nawaz and another v. Provincial Executive Chief, UBL and others 1993 PLC 656 etc. etc.). That cannot be said to have been done.

12. I am therefore clearly of the opinion that the findings of the Labour Court cannot be sustained and are therefore liable to be set aside.

13. I might as well add that even the contention on behalf of the respondent that he had been run down because his brother Bashir Ahmed was the General Secretary of the C.BA. (though not germane for the case) is not well found‑d because the latter has never come to any harm. Actually the atmosphere in the mill appears to be free from any tension.

14. As a result, the appeal is allowed. H.B.T./2276/Lb.S Appeal allowed.