DECISION ' This purports to be an application under section 50, I. R.
0., for the interpretation of sub-clauses (/) and (k) of clause 23 of the agreement arrived at between the applicant union and Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Limited on 20th November, 1980, which read as under :- "(j)&(k) It is agreed that upgrading of Food Inspectors post in the cadre of Analyzer shall be considered actively by the Management in view of the additional responsibilities assigned to them and final decision of the Management shall be communicated to the Union within three months' time."
' The difficulty or doubt regarding the above provision in the agreement is said to have arisen as according to the applicant union the Food Inspectors of the Rice Export Corporation are workmen for the purposes of Labour Laws while the stand of the Rice Export Corporation is that the Food In3pectors at workmen for the purposes of the Labour Laws and, accordingly, the aforesaid provision in the agreement is not valid and binding. The stand of the Corporation is founded upon the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan v. Naeem Wahid, decided on 4th February, 1981, wherein it was held that Naeem Wahid, who was employed as Food Inspector at Pasroor Railway Station was not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders.
That decision was given on the facts of that case, The respondent Corporation also appears to have further relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Employees' Union, Dacca (1) and the Workers of Bata Shoes Company v. Bata Shoes and another (2) where it was held that workmen are not entitled to raise questions relating to employees who belonged to a superior category or who are not workmen like them. The question, however, whether other Food Inspectors in the Rice Export Corporation are workmen either for the purposes of the Standing Orders or the 1. R.
0., can only be resolved on the basis of evidence as to the nature of their respective duties. The question would, thus, appear to be outside the scope of section 50,
1. R.
0. Perhaps an application by the applicant union under section 34, I. R.
0., would be more appropriate in the circumstances of the case. As far as the agreement itself is concerned, the provisions contained in sub-clauses (j) and (k), appear to be quite clear and would lead no room for any doubt or' difficulty. I would, accordingly, dismiss this application in limine. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLC 1961 SC 403 (2) 1971 PLC 1 {{FOOT NOTE}}