ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).--- This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 5-11-2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,3, Lahore at Ferozewala whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for the grant of gratuity was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the appellant joined the service of the respondent company on 1979 as Supervisor. Subsequently he was made Deputy Manager/Shift Incharge. He resigned in April, 2006. He applied for gratuity for this service but he was refused by the management. He approached the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act he,too dismissed his petition. He filed an appeal under section 17 of the Act ibid before the Labour Court at Ferozewala but this time also he remained unsuccessful.
3. Now he has come up in revision petition before this court.
4. Arguments have been heard and available record has been gone through.
5. The claim of the petitioner was that he was a workman and he had no powers of hire and fire. He could not sanction leave but only forward the same to the authority. Likewise he could not sanction loan to the subordinate staff. His duty was in different shifts. He is getting pension from the EOBI department, copy of which is Exh.P-1 While resigning from service he had demanded the total amount including gratuity but ultimately this relief was refused to him.
6. When cross-examined he stated that he applied for gratuity although his appointment was that of supervisor. On the leave application dated 17-1-2005 he had signed as "Job Incharge". He also admitted his signatures on Exhs.R-1 and R-2. On Exhs.R-4 and R-5 which were over time warrants he had appended his signatures as Incharge of the Section. The relevant file would come to him for signatures on the over time papers and he would append his signatures and return the same to the office for appropriate action. Leave application was also forwarded by him. His last pay was Rs,21,428 per month. He conceded that at the time of his resignation he was Shift Incharge who happens to be senior to the Supervisor. He got promotion as Shift Incharge in the year 1986. He had no social security card and neither he ever demanded the same. He had also been working as Deputy Manager Production. His request for gratuity was refused by the department on the ground that being an Officer in supervisory capacity he was not entitled to gratuity. In support of his contention he examined one Malik Muhammad Hayat an office Assistant Personnel Department, I.C.L. He supported the case of the petitioner but stated that he had been working as Deputy Production Manager. He had no powers of hire and fire as such he was entitled to gratuity. He conceded that he had the authority to forward the leave applications of the officials but had no powers to sanction the same.
7. The respondent management however produced one Malik Muhammad Ashraf as RW-1 who was serving as Time Office Incharge, Itfehad Chemical Limited (ICL). He stated that as Deputy Manager and Shift Incharge he was working in supervisory capacity and he had the authority to recommend leave and overtime cases of the subordinate staff.
8. A perusal of the record and the evidence brought on the record particularly the statement of the petitioner himself shows and shows very clearly that his appointment was that of supervisory officer. He had the authority to recommend the application for overtime and for casual leaves. He had no Social Security Card which is issued to the workers/ workmen, During his cross-examination he admitted that on .Ne casual application dated 17-1-2005 he had signed as Job Incharge.
Likewise on Exhs.R-1 and 2 he had appended his signatures as Job Incharge. On the overtime warrant documents he had signed as Office, Incharge. He had clearly stated that for over time sanction the officials would present the papers to him and he would sign the same. The post which he was holding at that time was Deputy Manager Production clearly shows that his duties were supervisory and managerial nature.
9. The principal objection on the part of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner was that although he was named as supervisor/Shift Incharge nevertheless he had no power of hire and fire.
He would merely recommend the application for leaves and overtime as such he cannot be termed to have been holding managerial or supervisory office. Even otherwise his pay cannot determine his status as workman. Acid test for the determination as to whether an employee is a workman or not, is the nature of the duties performed by him. An employee will be workman if the duties performed by him are manual or clerical in nature and not otherwise. This is almost a settled proposition. It is noteworthy that the petitioner has failed to describe what type of duties he had been performing with his own hands which could show that he was performing clerical or manual work.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it amply clears in cage of Dilshad Khan Lodhi v. Allied Bank of Pakistan and others (2007 PLC 41). While dealing with this proposition their Lordships held:- -- "Status of employee of Bank, whether workman or officer--- Determination---Employee of Bank being an Officer Grade-II heading a department of Bank independently and supervising work of five persons had no power of hire and fire---Employee preliminary was not employed as workman for doing 'manual or clerical or skilled or unskilled work---Nature and duties performed by such employee preliminary and essentially appearing to be of managerial and supervisory nature--- Such employee would fall beyond the ambit and purview of the term workman."
In another case reported as PLD 1994 SC 273 it was also ruled:--- .
"7. In the instant case evidence produced by the parties and brought on the record shows that as is apparent from Exhs.R/6 to R/9, petitioner recommended these leave applications by signing relevant columns reserved for head of department, Exhs.R/10 and R/11 are overtime sheets bearing signatures of petitioner. Exhs.R/12 and R/13 are travelling vouchers checked by him.. Exhs.R/16 is pay roll checked by him. Overtime wages could not be paid unless certified by the petitioner. Exhs.R/10 and R/11 indicated that petitioner exercised supervisory powers. In such circumstances evidence clearly showed that petitioner performed duties of supervisory nature and in any case he failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim that he is a workman and did not perform duties of supervisory nature."
11. Both these authorities would show and show clearly that only the nature of the duties performed by an employee would establish whether he is a workman or not. In this case the statement of the petitioner himself shows that he has all the attributes of an Officer. He had, therefore rightly been refused the desired relief the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act as well as by the learned Labour Court.
12. In this view of the matter the, revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed upholding the judgments passed by the learned courts below. Parties are left to L_ ar their costs.