Worker

Petitioner / employer company was aggrieved of acceptance of grievance petition of respondent / employee by National Industrial Relation Commission

Contention of petitioner / employer company was that respondent / employee was not covered under the definition provided for "worker" in Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and fora below had no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition

Validity

Documents produced by respondent / employee manifested that respondent / employee was worker who had been taking part in union activities

Respondent / employee remained General Secretary of All Pakistan OGDCL Mazdoor Ittihad Union (CBA) so objection with regard to jurisdiction of fora below was turned down

Complete appraisal of record was thoroughly done by both the fora below

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two fora of National Industrial Relation Commission, as there was no infirmity in their reasoning

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Question whether a person is a workman or not does not depend upon the designation but on the nature of duties.

Not scales of pay that determine whether a person is a worker or officer, but is the nature of duties performed by him which would determine that question.

S. O. 15(4)-Worker-Dismissal-Petitioner a fitter driving a bus and killing a boy of seven years-Contention that he could not be saddled with responsibility for killing and as such charge not standing proved against him, held, has no force-Petitioner charged -for driving out a bus being a Fitter and charge proved-Dismissal order, held, proper.

Nature of duties-Quantum of wages ipso facto not a determining factor-Shift Supervisor-Mainly per. forming Supervisor functions with powers to sanction/recommend leave, charge-sheet or transfer workers under his controlPerformance of any clerical work incidental to main function, in circumstances, held, would not change his status from Supervisor to worker

Petition against dismissal of such person, held, rightly rejected by Labour Court as not maintainable- Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25-A.

Travelling salesman-Whether a worker Petition against dismissal under S. 25-A dismissed by Labour Court holding that Travelling Salesman was not a worker-Petitioner claiming nature of duties as manual and clerical inasmuch as walking on foot for several miles, doing up accounts, physical handling of tea packages and sometimes pushing cart with salesman-No evidence led before Labour Court-Order of Labour Court, its circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal and matter remanded for decision afresh after obtaining evidence.

S. 2 (c) & S. O. 12(3)-Worker-Salesman - Whether or not a worker-Mere designation-Not a determining factor-Nature of duties to be taken into consideration-Salesman of Bata Shoe Company-Responsible to receive Stocks, prepare daily statements and clean and arrange properly his Stock for sale-Doing partly clerical work and partly manual work of unskilled nature-A workman-Entitled to maintain grievance petition before Labour Court against termination of service-Grievance petition

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25-A.

Intermittent work-Railway employees- Railway authorities competent to declare an employee as intermittent worker-Such status can further be changed by competent Railway authorities from time to time in view of actual performance assigned to an employee-Such status, however, cannot be assumed without specific declaration by competent Railway Authorities merely on basis of entries of duty roster-Gatemen required to perform duty for 12 hours daily-Not specifically declared as intermittent worker-Held, rightly allowed overtime wages by Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936-Railway Personnel Manual, para. 7l(a) and Railway Servants (Hours of Employment) Rules, 1931, r. 2 read with Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 15.

S. 2 (xxviii)- Worker - Appellant besides working as chowkidar also supervising three other chowkidars and drawing salary of Rs. 350 per month-Held, a workman.

Industrial dispute-Worker-Person designated as Overseer performing work assigned to him with his own hands - Skilled worker-Can invoke provisions of S. 25(1)(b), East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) .Act, 1965-East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act (VIII of 1965), S. 25(l)(b).

"Worker"-Person designated as supervisor having neither decision-making power nor duty of supervision over others-Word "supervisor" In circumstances, held, mis-nomer and such person, "worker" for purposes of East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965-East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act (VIII of 1965), Ss. 19 & 25(1)(b).

To be-decided on merits. Every case should be judged on its own merit and whatever designation may be given to an employee, the actual nature of work would determine whether -he is a worker as set out in Law.

S. 2(v)(i)(ii)-Worker-Employee of supervisory category-Need not have powers of controlling finances of the concern or entering into contract with outside agencies or to take independent decisions with regard to policy matters or even to appoint and dismiss employees-Without such powers one can be an employee of supervisory category so as to be excluded from definition of worker-Supervisor, even without powers of appointment and dismissal performing duties of supervising work of manual workers or clerks, held, not a worker.

Ss. 2(v) & 19-Worker-Employee of supervisory category-Not a worker irrespective of whether or not such supervisory employee exercises power of appointment or dismissal of any subordinate-Not entitled to benefits under S. 19.

Worker Worker-Reckless conduct affecting reputation of employer-Not fit to be retained in service.

Worker Worker-Debarred from working elsewhere-Must be held t to be whole-time worker-Benefit of compensatory allowance.