' The appellant, who was employed as Stores Officer and was in receipt of total emoluments of Rs, 2887.50 per month, was dismissed from employment with effect from 11th May, 1980. The appellant challenged the orders of his dismissal before the learned IVth Labour Court which ' has dismissed his grievance petition on the ground that as he was not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders, he was not entitled to file or maintain a grievance petition against the termination of his services under clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25-A, I.R.O. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. The appellant was appointed as Stores Officer in the respondent Company, vide, letter, dated 12th December, 1977. According to the said letter of appointment, his duties and responsibilities were as follows :- "(1) For the performance of your duties and assignments from time to time, you will receive your instructions from, and be responsible to the Head of Department, or anyone officiating in his place.
(2) Initially you will be required, after a thorough survey and appraisal, to reorganize the existing stores, both local and imported, to bring about smooth and efficient running of the entire stores system and to streamline its procedures and practices with special attention to the following :-
(a) Drawing up an organization chart and writing job description for all personnel working under you in the department.
(6) Studying, drawing up and implementing cost reduction procedures in an effort to reduce the operating cost of the store by 5% over the preceding year.
(e) Studying and implementing an operation budget for the department for next year with consultation with the deptt, heads.
(d) Setting up a P.E.S. (Personal Evaluation System) for each of your workers to enable Management to review each one's end of year performance (for purpose of internal promotions and pay raises).
(3) (a) Day to day maintenance and up keep of all ledgers and records of the stores and submission of periodical statements as and when required ;
(b) Maintaining minirnum/inaximtm/ordering/inventory levels In relation to the needs of the establishment ;
(e) (Streamlining tools issue procedures and records/greasing ; judicious classification/segregation of items.
(d) Maintaining effective liaison and co-ordination with the sections and departments of the factory and the Head Office ; avoidance of wastage of any nature by sections/ departments of any stores item you will thus be responsible for all the items handled in the store for their proper maintenance and for the maintenance of the necessary records, ledgers files etc.
(4) Your will be also responsible for supervision and welfare of the stores employees, allocation of their duties and the maintenance of discipline. You will ensure optimum performance from them and maintain the number of workers/employees within the sanctioned strength."
3. It was contended by Mr. Choudhry Rashid Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellant that the main duties of the appellant were clerical in nature and consequently the appellant should be deemed to be employed to perform work of clerical nature. In support of his contention, he relied upon item 3 of the duties and responsibilities of the appellant as spelt out in the appointment letter. The said item, however, has to be read in conjunction with the other item respecting the nature of duties and responsibilities of the appellant. Item 2 (d) of the appointment letter shows that it was the duty of the appellant to set up a personal evaluation system for each of his workers.
This shows that a number of employees were working under the appellant. This inference finds further support from item 4 of the appointment letter which recites that the appellant would be responsible for the supervision and welfare of the Stores employees, the allocation of their duties and maintenance of discipline and that he was expected to ensure optimum performance from them and to maintain the number of workers/employees within sanctioned strength. The said item not only confers wide ranging powers of supervision to the appellant over the employees in the Stores under his charge but seems also to suggest that he had powers of reducing or increasing the strength of employees under him. These wide powers, coupled with the fact that the appellant at the time of termination of his services was drawing total emoluments of Rs, 2887.59, clearly indicate that the appellant was not employed to do any manual or clerical work but the nature of his duties was supervisory in nature. No doubt, one of the duties of the appellant was the day to day maintenance and the upkeep of ledgers and record of the Stores and also the submission of periodical statements, but presumably this work was required to be done by the appellant not by himself but through the employees working under him. On consideration of the designation of the appellant, his total emoluments and the nature of various duties to be performed by him, I find myself in agreement with the view taken by the learned Labour Court that the appellant does not fall within the definition of workman as given In the Standing Orders. I would accordingly uphold the decision of the learned Labour Court and dismiss the appeal in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.