This is an appeal against the decision dated 30-1-1978 of Punjab Labour Court No. I, Lahore.
2. Sahibzada K. A. K. Afridi, appellant was appointed as an officer on 18-2-1975 vide appointment letter Exh. P-1 in the Finance Department of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation at Karachi in the salary scale of Rs. 1,200-75-1,950. Within a month of his joining service, he was transferred to Rawalpindi to work as a Liaison Officer (Finance). His services were terminated on 21-8-1977 without any enquiry. He served a grievance notice Exh. P-5 on 30-3-1977 and filed a petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 on 12-10-1977 before the Labour Court, which dismissed the same on the ground that he was not a workman as defined in section 2(i) of the W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
3. Aggrieved by the above decision Sabibzada K. A. K. Afridi, appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent, at the outset, raised a preliminary objection that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide this petition on the ground that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not applicable. In this connection he referred to a notification issued on 9-9- 1976 by the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence (Aviation Division), which is as under :----- "S. R. O. 896(1)/76.-In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (3) of section 1 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969), the Federal Government, in the public interest and in the interest of security of the airlines, is pleased to specify all persons employed in the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation drawing wages in pay groups not lower than Group V as the persons to whom the said Ordinance shall not apply."
5. On some later date the above notification was incorporated in section 1(3) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and it was provided that the Ordinance would not be applicable to the persons drawing wages in pay Groups Nos. V to X. The appellant was drawing wages in Group No. VI and, therefore it is clear that Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not applicable in his case. This however does not mean that the W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1963 was also not applicable. Section 35 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which relates to the powers of the Labour Courts is as under;----- (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5) A Labour Court shall---- (a)
(b)
(c)
(d) exercise and perform such other powers and functions as arc or may be conferred upon or assigned to it by or under this Ordinance or any other law.
6. The words `or any other law' mean that a worker can claim relief under any law other than the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In this connection it will be convenient to reproduce clause (3) of Standing Order 121 of the W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968, which reads as under :-- "The services of a workman shall not be terminated, nor shall a workman be removed, retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service, except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. In case a workman is aggrieved by the termination of his services or removal, retrenchment, discharge or dismissal, he may take action in accordance with the provisions of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969) and thereupon the provisions of the said section shall apply as they apply to the redress of an individual grievance."
7. In view of the above, the appellant can claim relief under the W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 by way of a petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the Labour Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the appellant.
8. Now the next point which requires determination is as to whether the appellant was a workman or not within the meaning of section 2(i) of W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment,(Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, which reads as under :- "Workman" means any person employed in any Industrial or Commercial Establishment to do any skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical work for hire or reward."
9. The true test, therefore, is to look to the direct, immediate and substantial part of the work for which he wag employed and not to the sundry duties incidentally performed by him; because the true nature of the duties performed by him is the determining factor in ascertaining if he was a workman or not within the meaning of the above definition.
10. The duties of the appellant are given in Exh. P. S. As under : - "(1) Recovery of all P. I. A. Dues against/ all Ministries of the Government of Pakistan and other Government Departments/Offices by personal visits, correspondence and other means of communications.
(2) Expedite recovery of P. I. A. Dues from all Foreign Missions at Islamabad in the manner aforesaid.
(3) Actively follow up with the above offices and deal with all queries raised by any office, in accordance with the laid down procedure.
(4) Assisting Station Accountant; P. I. A. Rawalpindi in maintaining a complete and uptodate file of all outstanding dues recoverable from all category of debtors.
(5) Follow-up with the Department concerned any matter referred to by the Head Office.
(6) Submission of a fortnightly report of recovery showing the name of the Department, invoice and amount realised, to Credit Control Section through Station Accountant, Rawalpindi."
11. The appellant had nobody under him. He had no power to hire and fire. He did not perform supervisory or managerial functions. No evidence in rebuttal was produced to show that the appellant was performing, supervisory or managerial functions.
12. From the above, it is clear that the appellant was performing clerical work and as such was a workman within the meaning of section 2(1) of the P W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, contended that in view of the representation Exh. D-3 dated 27-1-1976 made by the appellant for promotion to Group VIII, in which the actual work performed by him was shown, he was not a workman and as such the petition was not competent. The relevant portion of the said representation is as under :--- "Worthy Director Finance and learned Comptroller Fund. Management will graciously appreciate sense of responsibility unprecedented enthusiasm, zeal and efficiency displayed by the undersigned during the short span of eleven months, cronic cases which almost had become bad debts since years were accelerated and besides recovery of credit in Crores of Rupees sharp reduction of debts and stoppage of credit to large. Extent has resulted thus forming normal smooth channel of working.
In addition to my normal duties as a Liaison Officer, few Departmental inquiries were entrusted to me relating to various misappropriations as well as pursuance of cases concerning major financial mishaps in P. I. A. At Rawalpindi and I tackled the intricate situations with utmost caution and intelligence and thereby helped in solving/saving of huge amount of money to Corporation.
Worthy Director Finance and learned Comptroller Funds Management are fully aware of the timely and prompt realization of crores of Rupees and will fully appreciate my sincere efforts and devotion for quick disposal of cased from various Ministries etc. Etc. Within shortest possible period.
In view of the above submission I request the Management to kindly consider my case for promotion to Group VIII."
14. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that since few depart--mental enquiries were entrusted to him relating to various misappropriations as well as pursuance of cases concerning major financial mishaps in the P. I. A. Rawalpindi, he was not a workman. This contention has no force, because these were not the main and primary duties performed by the appellant. In other words the above duties were sundry duties incidentally performed by him, and, therefore, they cannot change the nature of his main and primary duties.
15. I, accordingly, hold that the appellant was a workman within the meaning of Standing Orders Ordinance and as such he could claim relief under it.
16. In the result I accept the appeal, set aside the decision of the Labour Court and direct that the appellant be re-instated with back benefits.