DECISION ' The appellant, who was employed as a Foreman in the Twisting Department of the respondent- Company, was dismissed from service with effect from 12th June, 1979 on the charge of foully abusing the Management on 14th March, 1979. He challenged the order of his dismissal from service before the Third Labour Court which has dismissed his grievance petition, by its decision, dated 4th September, 1980, on the ground that it was not maintainable 45 tilt) Appellant was 4 Foreman and Om did not fall within the definition of workman as given under the Standing Orders Ordinance. Aggrieved by this decision the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. In support of this contention that the appellant was a workman Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, the learned counsel for the appellant, relied upon-
(a) the order of appointment of the appellant and his appeal dated 4.. 25th January, 1978; and
(b) the evidence of the appellant and his witnesses that the appellant was required to perform the duties of a fault cutter as supported by the letter of the respondent company, dated 5th January, 1971.
3. On the other hand, it was contended by Mr. M. A. Khan, the learned representative for the respondent company, that though the appellant was originally employed as an apprentice Foreman, he was subsequently performing the full duties of a foreman and he had both examiners as well as fault cutters working under him whose work he was controlling and supervising. In support of these contentions the learned Representative invited my attention to the various documents on the record of the case.
4. It, thus, falls to be considered whether the appellant at the relevant time was employed to perform the duties of a Foreman or whether in addition to his duties as foreman he was also required to perform the duties of a fault cutter and examiner. It was not disputed by either of the learned representatives, in view of the authoritative decisions on this point, some of which were noticed by the learned Labour Court in its decision which is the subject-matter of this appeal, that a foreman does not fall within the definition of workman as given in the Standing Orders Ordinance.
Now, it is not disputed that on 19th June, 1970 the appellant was appointed as apprentice foreman.
This is clear from his order of appointment. It was, however, contended by Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim that he continued to be employed as apprentice foreman till his dismissal from service in 1979. Support for this contention was sought to be obtained from the representation made by the appellant on 25th January, 1978. I have carefully considered the said representation and am of the view that it was really against the withholding from the appellant of increased allowances and emoluments by reason of his work being classified as average or below average. 1 am unable to persuade myself that the said representation can really be considered as a protest against the continuance reemployment of the appellant as apprentice foreman since 1970. This inference gains overwhelming support from the documentary evidence on the record of the case. The first document to which I would like to refer in this behalf is the show-cause notice, dated 29th March, 1979 served upon the appellant. The said show-cause notice clearly gives the designation of the appellant as foreman and not as apprentice foreman. To this show-cause notice the appellant has himself given a reply, dated 1st April, 1979, wherein he has described himself as foreman and not apprentice foreman. The notice of the enquiry, dated 4th April, 1979, by the plant Manager to the appellant also describes the appellant as foreman. There is also another letter, dated 16th September, 1976, requiring the appellant to submit his explanation in regard to certain matters under his charge, including ensuring the maintenance of discipline in his shift. The appellant be responsible for the maintenance Of discipline in his shift only Olio Was in charge of the shift.
Moreover, in this letter also the appellant has been described as "Foreman". The next document which I would like to refer in this behalf contains the instructions given on 1st August, 1972 to the foreman in the twisting Department with regard to his responsibilities as Supervising Officer. This letter bears the initials of the appellant. According to these instructions, the foreman is responsible for the general position and cleanliness of the Department, stock positions, cones of sizing etc., cleanliness of machines, water in troughs short run cones in winding and short run cheeses on twisting. Subsequent instructions to the foreman were issued on 9th August, 1972, 20th August, 1972, 5th July, 1976 and 10th July, 1976, all of which firmly establish the fact that the appellant was working as full fledged foreman and controlling the staff working under him. Finally, mention may be made of the complaint, dated 20th July, 1974, made by the appellant to the plant Manager against certain workers. In that complaint the appellant has designated himself as foreman, 'C' shift, in the twisting Department. All these circumstances clearly establish the fact that the appellant was employed as foreman and was invested with all powers in that behalf.
5. It was, however, contended by Mr. Mirza Mohammad Kazim that In addition to the duties which the appellant was required to 'perform as foreman he was also required to perform the manual duties of examiner and fault cutter. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied upon the letter, dated 5th January, 1971, and the evidence given before the Labour Court by the appellant himself and his three witnesses. Abdul Wahid, Mumtaz Ahmed and Races Khan. No doubt, the letter, dated 5th January, 1971, indicates that the appellant was required to perform the job of a fault cutter but the said letter was issued over eight years prior to the dismissal of the appellant and it cannot be said that upto the time of his dismissal the appellant was continuing to perform the duties of fault cutter. In fact the said letter itself explains that it was on account of administrative difficulties that the appellant was compelled to perform the duties of fault cutter at that time. So far as the oral evidence of the appellant and his witnesses is concerned that the appellant was also required to perform the duties of fault cutter and examiner, it may be mentioned that the evidence on the record completely negatives their evidence in this behalf. The documents, Exh. A/49, dated 20th August, 1972, and Exh. A/50, dated 9th August, 1972, indicate that as far back as 1972 examiners were working under the appellant. The documents Exh. A/51, and Exh. A/52, besides being of much later date, namely April, 1978 and February, 1978, further establish the fact that examiners and fault cutters were working under the appellant, as they contain directions of the Twisting Department to the foremen to instruct their examiners and fault cutters to improve. The evidence on record clearly shows that a number of workmen were employed under the appellant and that he not only used to supervise their work but also entrust work to them and grant them leave etc. The letter, dated 16th September, 1976, from the Plant Manager to the appellant requesting for the appellant's explanation charges that the appellant was failing to ensure the maintenance of discipline within his shift and to achieve production and waste targets. In his reply, dated 20th April, 1976, the appellant has claimed that he was maintaining proper discipline In his shift, that he had verbally warned the workers and that in future he would be submitting reports for the taking of disciplinary actions against them. This reply shows that the appellant had effective control over the workers under his charge. This also appears from the Inter Department job orders, dated 28th November, 1978, 14th November. 1978 and 30th October, 1978, by which the appellant had given instructions to various employees in the Twisting Department to perform certain specific functions.
6. I, accordingly, am of the view that the learned Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant was a foreman and, thus, was not entitled to file or maintain a grievance petition as he did not fall within the definition of "workman" as given in the Standing Orders and that further he was not required or employed to do any manual or clerical work. I would, accordingly, uphold the findings of the learned Labour Court and dismiss this appeal