2010 PLC 153 (PLP)

CH. ASAD RAZA (MEMBER).

The appellants named above, have preferred this appeal under section 28 of the I.R.A., 2008 against an order, dated 30-9-2009, passed by the learned Chairman/RITU, NIRC, Islamabad.

2. The relevant facts to understand the background of the grievance as put in their petition, are that the appellants Nos.1 to 4 are officers Grade-III, whereas appellant No.5 is an Officer Grade-II, in the Establishment of UBL, who claimed for the nature of their job duties performed as manual and clerical, and thus, they could be defined as "workmen" so mentioned in the I.R.A., 2008, and other labour laws, that they filed their application for a permission to participate in proceedings of election of UBL Employees and Workers Union Punjab, Islamabad and N.-W.F.P. before the Registrar/Authorised Officer, but he rejected it summarily and removed the names, of the applicants from the list of the voters, on the ground that the appellants/petitioners were not workmen.

3. Feeling dissatisfied with the verdict of Registrar, they made an a application bearing No.7A(84) of 2009, before the learned Chairman/RITU of this Commission who was pleased to issue notice to UBL for providing list of duties assigned to each of the appellants, so as to determine whether they are workmen or not, and ultimately, vide an order dated 30-9-2009, their petition was dismissed, hence this appeal on the grounds that the order impugned was an outcome of haste, without listening of the management with regard to question of determination of appellants as workmen or not, and also proceeding on lines but against the settled legal norms and a true picture of the facts of the case. It is desired, now at this end, that the verdict confined in the order, dated 30-9-2009, being set aside, the respondent No.2, namely the Registrar/Authorized Officer be directed to include the names of the appellants in the voters list for the purpose of internal elections of the CBA.

4. We have heard at length, and attended seriously to the legal wisdom, deposed and expressed at Bar by Qazi Ahmed Naeem Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellants. He has dilated much upon the background and facts which constrained, the appellants to engage themselves in different rounds of litigation, either before this Commission, or the Honourable High Court. Despite that hectic exercise, he has not been able to persuade us conveniently to lead this Bench to express a view, contrary to the one as by the learned Chairman/RITU.

5. The reasons are that over a Court question, and after consulting the appellants present in Court, he informed us that since 1986, the appellants are working as officer Grade-III (appellants Nos.1 to 4 and appellant No.5 in Grade-II). It could also not be controverted on behalf of the appellants that Syed Nazar Abbas (appellant No.1) is Branch Operational Manager and his job description as given in Annexure "R/2". The status of Mr. Muhammad Shafique Khan appellant No.2 as Officer Grade-III, and his holding a power of attorney for the Bank Branch in which he is posted, could not be denied (Annexure "R/3"). Appellant No.3 is equally Brach Operation Manager and the details of his duty performed is indicated in Annexure "R/4". Same is for appellant No.4, who is Branch Operational Manager, his job description is attached as Annexure "R/5". Appellant No.5, Officer Grade-II is equally with a power of attorney, and the Incharge of ATM Cards and Customer Remittances-responsible for managing cash and time deposit, and his job description given in Annexure "R/6".

6. That being the factual position and so not even denied by the appellants in any manner, we are clear in our minds, to hold, that all the appellants fall out of the category of the workmen, and obviously, they are not eligible to be a member of the workers trade union and participate in the proposed election for CBA.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants, vehemently argued that the nature of the job of each appellant, is only of collecting cash in the Bank: therefore, even if for the sake of arguments, it is believed that they are performing the duties of managerial and supervisory nature in their respective branches, nevertheless, they can be conveniently termed as workmen and for this, evidence on facts to be recorded, was a requirement of law, and also a better administrative of justice. To all this, we seek guidance from legal wisdom as available in C.P.L.A. 1079 of 2008, Ref. Javed Hussain Naqi v. Member Board of Director MCB and others wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan having resolved the legal aspect related to the controversy involved herein, we do not feel comfortable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel and the proposal to remand the case for recording of evidence, is turned down.

8. During the proceedings of this appeal, appellant No.2 namely Muhammad Shafique Khan, present in person, submitted an affidavit which has been placed on record, stating therein that he is neither a member of UBL Employees and Workmen Union Punjab, Islamabad and N.-W.F.P., nor he has any concern with this union, nor he has ever deposited the union fee because the nature of his duty is supervisory, as .those of the co-appellants. He made a statement along with the learned counsel to withdraw the appeal, therefore, to his extent, the appeal be deemed to have been dismissed as withdrawn. For what has been said and done above, the result is that this appeal fails and thus, dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./21/NIRC Appeal dismisse