ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA, CHAIRMAN - This revision petition assails the order dated 10.6.2010 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala in appeal No. 07/2010 whereby the order passed by the Authority Under Payment of Wages Act, was set aside holding that the petitioner was not a workman and as such was not entitled to gratuity.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the petitioner joined the respondent establishment as a Fitter. Subsequently, he was made Supervisor. He would perform his duties with his own hands as a Fabricator under the supervision of the Malik Muhammad Latif, Maintenance Manager of the company. There was none subordinate to him. He could neither appoint anyone nor he could dispense with anybody's services. He had no authority to charge- sheet anyone and was not entitled to grant leave as well. At the time of his retirement his pay was Rs. 11640/- and he was deprived of his gratuity. There was about 400/500 employees in the respondent establishment. He had been wrongly deprived of his gratuity which may be granted to him. He initially approached the Authority under Payment of Wages Act which recorded evidence of the parties and allowed the petition for grant of gratuity. The evidence recorded by the Authority shows that the petitioner appeared as PW-1 in support of his petition and reiterated his stance in the petition. He was cross- examined at length. In cross- examination he stated that there were three Helpers with him besides to Fitters and a Welder who were also working with him. He was not entitled to grant or refuse anybody's leave. He would however forward their applications to the Maintenance Manager.
Though he was a Supervisor but since he was working himself he was a workman and he had been wrongly deprived of the gratuity.
3. In rebuttal the establishment examined Malik Muhammad Ashraf, Incharge of the office time of the establishment. He stated that he knew the petitioner very well. He was working as Supervisor in the establishment. His main job was to supervise the work of his subordinates. He was getting Rs.
10,000.00 salary approximately per month. He would recommend over time and leave applications of his subordinates. He produced time slips dated 21.1.2006 Exp. R-1, 8.3.2006 Exp. R-2 and 11.3.2006 Exp. R-4 in which he had signed as "Job Incharge". According to him he was not entitled to the gratuity. He was getting his pay through bank. In cross-examination he stated that neither he knew who was the Incharge of the petitioner nor he was aware that who issued his appointment letter.
He was not aware of the place where he was working. He was not entitled to issue show-cause notice nor he was entitled to recruit anyone. He was not aware of the name of the time keeper but his signatures were present on the record. He could not identify the signatures of the head of the Department nor was in his knowledge when he was appointed as a Fitter. He pleaded ignorance in answer to a question that one Riaz Supervisor was also given gratuity by the company and he equally pleaded ignorance to another question that one Maqbool Supervisor in the Dispensary was also granted gratuity.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. It was contended by the learned representative for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially Fitter, he became senior Fitter in due course of time and worked with his own hands although some helpers were working with him nevertheless since he himself worked with his own hands despite the fact that he had some helpers in the job but that does not deprive him of the character of workman. As such the Authority had appreciated the facts properly and allowed him the desired relief. However, the learned Labour Court appears to have misconstrued and misinterpreted the depositions of the petitioner as well as of the witness of the respondent company. It was persistently the stand of the petitioner that although some other helpers were working with him and were not under him nevertheless he had to perform his duties with his own hands. So this will not deprive him of his status as a workman.
6. On the other hand the witness examined by the management was unaware of the place where the petitioner was working; what was his appointment initially and under whose supervision he had been working. He however knew only this much that he was working in the Engineering Department.
A close analysis of evidence of both the witnesses would reveal that though he has been named as Supervisor yet he had no trappings of managerial supervisory or a directional character. He was a glorified Mistry in the department and we cannot take him out of the pale of the workmanship.
Supervisory, Managerial or directional officers are expected to display the quality of initiative and drive, intelligence and correct speculation and for doing that there are always given some independence in their line of action. They are excepted to use their mental faculties to find new avenues in their job and eventually they contribute to the development of the business of the company. In this case the petitioner asserts that he himself had been working. If he had some helpers then that would not change the nature of his duties. He might be directing the helpers to some extent but when he himself states that he had been doing the job with his own hands, the establishment cannot make him a managerial, supervisory and directional officer in the company.
It appears that the Authority had examined the witnesses and had the privilege of seeking their demeanour and would have properly appreciated the import of their testimony. I feel inclined to agree with the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act that the Senior Fitter even though helped by few helpers was still a "Senior Mistry" and nothing beyond that. As for the vouchers shoeing him the "Job Incharge" this is customary with the establishments to describe their workers in the position of Supervisor to take them out of the category of the workman with a view to avoid multiple "troubles".
7. In this view of the matter I am positive in my mind that the petitioner cannot be described as a Supervisor, Manager or an Executive Officer in the establishment. The Order passed by the learned Labour Court is set aside and the one rendered by the Authority under the Payment of Wages and Act is upheld.
8. In this view of the matter the revision petition is accepted upholding the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, leaving the parties to the bear their own costs.