The appellant, who was employed as Shift Supervisor in the respondent-Company, was charge- sheeted for misconduct, vide charge-sheet, dated 27th July, 1977. On the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, who found the charges of misconduct established against the appellant, he was dismissed from service with effect from 24th September, 1977. The appellant challenge the orders of his dismissal before the learned Had Labour Court which has dismissed his grievance petition, by its decision, given on 10th September, 1980, on the grounds, firstly, that the appellant was not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders and consequently his grievance petition was not maintainable, and secondly, that the misconduct of the appellant was duly establised in a fair and impartial enquiry. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. I have heard Mr. M.L. Shahani, who appeared for the appellant and Mr. Ghulam Hassan who represented the respondents. The main contention of Mr. Shahani was that the finding of the learned Labour Court that the appellant is not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders is incorrect and is liable, on that account, to be set aside, Mr. Shahani sought support for his contention from the letter of appointment and the job description of the appellant. The learned counsel pointed out that according to the penultimate, paragraph of the letter of appointment of the appellant, the Standing Orders were made explicitly applicable to him. As regards the various duties of the appellant specified in his job description, the learned counsel referred to the duties regarding maintenance of records by the appellant and contended that these duties prima facie show the appellant was primarily employed for performing clerical duties. He also submitted that the learned Labour Court had wrongly taken into consideration, in arriving at the conclusion that the appellant was not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders, the fact that the appellant for 27 days in July, 1977 was paid wages pf Rs, 2,515.66. The learned counsel explained that the monthly basic wages of the appellant amounted to only Rs, 670 while the balance of the amount paid to him represented his dues for doing overtime night shift duties transport allowance, dearness allowance etc. On the other hand, it was contended by Mr. Ghulam Hassan, the learned representative for the respondent-Company, on the basis of the letters of appointment, job description and duties of the appellant and the other -'documents which have been admitted by the appellant himself, that the nature of duties of the appellant was primarily supervisory in nature and that he was not employed to do any manual or clerical work.
3. The 2 most important documents which are to be considered for determining the issue whether the appellant was employed to do any manual or clerical work are, firstly, the appellant's letter of appointment, and secondly, the statement of the appellants job description. The letter of appointment recites that the appellant was being employed in a supervisory capacity. This itself suggests that the nature of duties of the appellant pertained to management and they were not manual or clerical in nature. As regards the contention of Mr. Shahani that the provisions of the Sind Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, were specifically made applicable to the appellant by the appointment order itself, I find no force therein. This contention is based, as previously stated in this judgment, on the penultimate paragraph of the appointment order, which reads as follows :- "The Standing Orders, rules and Regulations of the Company shall be binding upon you."
A plain reading of the above paragraph makes it quite clear that the reference is to the standing orders of the Company and not to the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The coma after the words "Standing Orders' early indicates, by the rules of grammar, that the qualification "of the Company" is applicable to these words as also to the rules and regulations of the Company. It is common knowledge that in most of the companies, there are standing orders, rules and regulations. In fact, the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, itself envisage the issuance of standing order by industrial and commercial establishments, with the qualification that the standing orders will not be less advantageous to the workmen than what has been provided in the Ordinance itself. The more important document, however, is the statement of the job description of the appellant, which statement has been signed by the appellant himself in full acceptance of the terms and conditions of his service. It fully establishes the fact that the appellant was employed to do supervisory duties and was not engaged for doing manual or clerical work. The said statement of duties, which appears as Exh. 3/C on the record of the learned Labour Court, reads as follows:-{{TABLE}} "For Supervisor Department :Section (Shift)ProductionAll Sections Operating in his Shift Primary Function: The Supervisor is responsible to the production Engineer for the supervision of the Section of the factory operating in the shift assigned to him :-- Work performed:
(1) To be responsible for the implementation of production schedules in all the sections of the factory operating in his shift.
(2) To maintain records of all raw material processed and used in production in the sections under his charge.
(3) To maintain upto date records of all production in his shift and prepare and submit production reports as required by the '- Management.
(4) To ensure that production and other allied procedures are properly followed in the sections under his charge.
(5) To ensure that work in the factory is carried out according to health and safety procedures/standards laid down by the Management.
(6) To ensure that routine and periodic maintenance of the machines and equipment in the sections in his charge is carried out regularly.
(7) To be responsible for discipline in the section in his charge.
(8) To ensure observance of quality control procedures in the manufacturing process carried out in the sections in his charge.
(9) To record idle time and reasons thereof of the machines in all the sections in his charge.
(10) To carry out all other miscellaneous and allied work in the factory as instructed from time to time by the Management.
(11) To carry out any other duties assigned by the Management. Supervision exercised : To supervise and exercise control over all permanent or temporary man in the factory in his shift and any other section which may be put under his charge.
To sanction/recommend leave to men under his control according to Rules/Policy laid down by the Management.
To transfer or recommend transfer of men under his control as and when required.
Supervision received : Plant Engineer and A.P.O. Are available for consultation.
This job description reflects the general details considered necessary for describing the principal functions of the job identified and shall not be construed as a detailed description of all work requirement that may be inherent in the job.
(Sd.) Col. S. S. Zaman Works Manager. I accept the above terms and conditions.
(Sd.) Signature & date, 8th April, 1975."
4. A bare perusal of the above statement makes it clear that the appellant not only exercised wide supervisory control over all permanent and temporary men in the factory in his shift and also in any other seen which may be put under his charge, but he had powers to sanction/recommend leave to men under his charge, to charge-sheet workmen under his control and also to transfer or recommend their transfer as and when required. Although the appellant in his evidence before the learned Labour Court asserted that he never issued any charge-sheet to a worker nor transferred any workers, nor sanctioned leave to any workers, but from the 42 documents which were put to him in his cross-examination, it is clear that the appellant had been granting leave to workers, recommending their annual increments, asking for disciplinary action against them and recommending workmen either for promotion or for upgradation of their posts. Exhs. 3/H to 3/N are the leave applications sanctioned by the appellant Exhs. 3/0 to 3/P are the lists of workmen whose annual increments have been recommended by the appellant while Exhs. 3/Q and 3/T are the cases recommended by the appellant or promotion upgradation of the posts. Reference may also be made to 2 other documents which undisputably establish that the appellant was performing supervisory duties and not manual or clerical duties. Exhs. 3/D is an application made by the appellant himself to the Works Manager on 19th September, 1975. In that application the appellant himself has stated that supervisors are part of the Management. The next important document is Exh. 3/F which is a memorandum from the Works Manager regarding the powers of Shift Supervisors. The said memorandum states that the shift supervisor is over-all incharge of all factory during his shift and that all personnel including the security staff and laboratory personnel will come under his direct control and will take orders from him. On that memorandum, the appellant has recorded in his own hand that has no doubt about the duties of the Shift Supervisor.
5. Mr. Shahani sought to lay stress on the duties of the appellant specified at them 2, 3 and 9 of statement of duties of supervisor and argued that at least these duties are clerical in nature. No doubt, the performance of these duties involves some clerical work, but from this, it cannot be inferred that the duties themselves were clerical in nature. Merely because the performance of any function or duty involves the doing of some clerical work, it does not follow that the performance of those duties constitutes the performing of clerical work. A person can only be deemed to be a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders, if he is employed to do manual or clerical work.
Even the General Manager of the Company may some times have to perform duties and functions which involve the doing of clerical work. Thereby he does not become a workman employed to do manual or clerical work. The performance of any such clerical work is merely incidental to the main function of the person concerned. What has, therefore, to be considered is what are the essential or the main functions of the person concerned. In the instant case, as shown, the main functions of the appellant are the performance of supervisory functions. No doubt, as contended by Mr. Shahani, the amount of Rs, 2,515.66 received by the appellant as his total wages for the 27 days of July, included, besides his basic wages, all his allowances, but nevertheless that amount was the carry-home wages that the appeallant received for doing work on 27 days. The karned Labour Court thus rightly took this amount into constdotation while determining the question whether the appellant was a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders. I would, however, like to add a word of caution that the quantum of wages received by a person is not the determining or even the most important factor for deciding the issue whether a person is a workman for the purposes of Standing Orders. The determining factor is the nature of duties for which he was employed.
6. On the view that I have taken that the appellant is not a workman for the purposes of Standing Orders, his grievance petition , against his dismissal is not maintainable, as has been pointed out by me in - the case of Johnson & Johnson (Pak.) Ltd. v. Zubair Ahmad and another .
7. Since the grievance petition of the appellant, in my opinion, was not maintainable, it will serve no useful purpose in going into the merits of the case and examining the contention of Mr. Shahani that the enquiry was not fair or proper and that the Enquiry Officer's report is misleading.
8. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same. 1980 PLC 622