' ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).--- This appeal assails the legality of the judgment dated 4-4- 1989 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,7, Gujranwala whereby the grievance petition filed by the respondent was accepted with back-benefits.
2. The case has somewhat chequered history. The respondent was employed I the appellant bank on 3-4-1965 and with the passage of time due to his hard work he was promoted as Manager and served at different branches of the bank as Manager. He was however accused of some misconduct and was dismissed from service vide order dated 23-10-1984 .
3. He filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court No,7, Gujranwala which was allowed vide order dated 4-4-1989 and was ordered to be reinstated with back benefits.
4. The bank assailed the order in the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal but their appeal was dismissed on 22-11-1989. After the dismissal of the appeal the respondent filed a contempt petition in which a compromise was effected but the bank allegedly resiled from the commitment and the respondent was obliged to file a grievance petition for the grant of Benevolent Fund and medical facility. His grievance petition was accepted vide order dated 24-6-1993. The bank filed an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal which too was dismissed vide order dated 21-12-1996.
5. This judgment of the Tribunal was challenged by the bank authorities by means of a Writ Petition No,12017 of 1997 which was allowed by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court vide judgment dated 3-4- 2000 (reported as 2001 PLC 614) and the case was remanded to the Labour Appellate Tribunal for fresh decision of the appeal. This appeal is now being disposed of through this judgment.
6. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
7. At the very outset it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that throughout the bank objection had been that the respondent was not a workman and as such not entitled to maintain the grievance petition but the learned Labour Court, as well as the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal have been misconstruing the provisions of law and have been holding it otherwise. The fact of the matter is that the respondent has admitted as under:---
(1) He has worked as Manager Pucca Anna Branch;
(2) He has worked as a Manager in Nankana Sahib Branch;
(3) He used to grant leaves;
(4) He used to issue relieving orders;
(5) He used to issue cross cheques on behalf of the bank;
(6) He had been evaluating proposals for loans;
(7) He was responsible for other employees working under him and
(8) He had the custody of the bank keys.
All these duties/responsibilities clearly are neither clerical nor manual. These are managerial, administrative, directional and supervisory in nature. The pith and substance of the job which he performed was obviously of managerial nature, therefore, he was not entitled to maintain the grievance petition before the Labour Court.
8. On the other hand it was canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent that despite existence of this type of evidence the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was that he was a workman and was competent to maintain the grievance petition as such this issue cannot now be raised afresh.
9. After hearing arguments I am afraid I could not persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the respondent in view of the number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P.L.A. No,1069 of 2008 in Javaid Hussain Naqi v. Member Board of Directors MCB and others wherein in almost an identical situation the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled:--- "The argument of the learned counsel that the branch in which the petitioner was last posted, was a small branch, is altogether out of context. The size of a branch has no nexus with the nature of duties of the Manager, which always remain of managerial and supervisory nature. It would be ridiculous to observe that the Manager of a large branch would not be a "workman" and that of a small branch would be. There being no force in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
' Even otherwise in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilshad Khan Lodhi versus Allied Bank of Pakistan and others (2008 SCM R 1530) he cannot seek indulgence of the Labour Court. A person who is Manager and works in a supervisory capacity cannot be termed as a workman and does not fall within the category of worker. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled:- "With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have had the privilege of going through the pleadings of the parties, as well as oral evidence led by the parties in support of their respective versions. On a careful and conscious scanning of the record and appraisal of the evidence, we are firmly of the opinion that mere designation of a person, the amount of emoluments drawn by him or even holding a power of attorney by itself are not the sole criteria for determining his status. The fact remains that undoubtedly the petitioner in his capacity as Officer grade-II has been heading a department of the respondent establishment independently and supervising the work of at least five persons. No doubt, he did not have the power of hire and fire, the nature of job as performed by him and evident from the record including the power of attorney executed in his favour tends to show that he was not primarily employed as a workman doing manual or clerical, skilled or unskilled work. The nature and duties performed by him primarily and essentially appeared to be of managerial and supervisory nature, which clearly fall beyond the ambit and purview of the term "workman".."
10. In this view of the matter I feel that the respondent who had been Manager of 'at least two branches and then was Inspector of branches in Sialkot where his duty was supervisory in nature was not competent to maintain the grievance petition. The question of workmanship is indeed of far reaching consequences. In the present state of affairs if he is found not to be a workman the court stands denuded of the power of disposal of the case. In this view of the matter I feel that the respondent was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court for seeking relief.
11. As for the other points having been agitated by the parties since this formidable objection has been accepted further discussion in the matter would be altogether futile.
12. In this view#of the matter the appeal succeeds and the grievance petition tiled by the respondent is dismissed.
13. As for the plea that the Tribunal's judgment has attained finality and this has to prevail even today, it is noteworthy that when the law clearly has laid down that one who holds managerial and supervisory post is not entitled to avail remedy from the Labour Court.
14. In this view of the matter the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Labour Court is set aside leaving the parties to bear their own costs.