ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).--- This appeal is directed against the order dated 22-9-2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,5, Sargodha whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the appellant was Branch Manager of the Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited, Kala Bagh Branch in the year 1998. He was charge sheeted for temporary embezzlement. The charge against him was that he received a sum of Rs,35,000 in Malik Bagh Ali, CD A/c No,809 on 17-3-1998 against cash receipt/pay in Slip No,3635623 under his signatures and a sum of Rs,25,000 on 6-4-1998 in CD A/c 613 in the name of Matiullah under Pay in Slip No,748419 with his clear signatures but these amounts were not deposited in the relevant accounts on the dates the amounts were received. So he was accused of pocketing the amounts unauthorizedly and keeping the same with him for 52 and 32 days respectively. These amounts were later deposited on 8-5-1998 in Sundry accounts through Mr. Walayat Hameed Khan Officer, ABL, Zonal Office Mianwali which were credited to actual A/c after verification of the genuineness of the accounts holders on 18-5-1998.
3. Another supplementary charge sheet was also issued to him on 10-5-1999. He filed replies to these charge sheets. The Bank authorities were however not satisfied with the same and ordered for an enquiry. Consequently he was dismissed from service vide letter of dismissal dated 19-10- 1999.
4. The appellant filed a grievance petition which was dismissed as indicated above.
5. At the very outset the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the appellant was a "Branch Manager" at the relevant time when he was accused of the embezzlement, so being not a workman he was neither entitled to file the grievance petition nor this appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant however pointed out that at the time of dismissal he was not a Branch Manager and was rather posted as. Officer Grade III in the Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited, Zonal Office (Mianwali Zone), Aisha Masjid Street, Off Balookhel Road, Mianwali.
7. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
8. It is an admitted fact that he was Manager of the Kala Bagh Branch of the Bank where he himself states that besides him there was an Accountant and one Security Guard. As per his claim the branch was a very small one as such his status being that of Officer Grade III shall be construed to be that of a workman. There is a chain of authorities of the superior courts that one who works as Manager which indeed is supervisory, managerial and directional capacity is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. Reliance may be placed on decision 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 rule laid down in Dilshad Khan Lodhi v. 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"
9. In this view of the matter the appellant at the relevant time was the Manager of the Branch though it was a very small branch nevertheless it was a supervisory, managerial and directional post as such the appellant was not a workman and not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 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.