This appeal is directed against the decision dated 23rd January, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer.
Punjab Labour Court No: 1, Lahore, whereby the petition of the appellant was dismissed on the sole ground that he was not a workman.
2. The appellant was Deputy Manager. He was alleged to have committed misconduct while he was at China, where he was sent for getting training. When he came back he was charge-sheeted and after holding an enquiry was dismissed for misconduct committed at China. He challenged the order of dismissal in section 25-A petition which was .Contested by the respondents. It was contended in the written statement that the appellant was not a workman. The appellant appeared as his own witness as P. W. 1 and Riaz Hussain Bukhari, Manager, Heavy Foundry and Forge, Taxila was examined by him as P. W.
2. On behalf of the respondents, Muhammad Ilyas, Manager, Heavy Foundry and Forge was examined as DW-1. Besides leave applications Exhs. D-4 to D-18, A. C. Rs. Exhs, D-19 to D-22, appointment order as Enquiry Officer in a case Exh. D-24 Reports Exh D-25 to D-28 were produced on the point. The appellant in his statement stated that he was made Deputy Manager in March 1978 but it was only a change of designation and he never worked as such. As he was sent to China for getting training and prior to that was Assistant Manager. He went on; to say that while working in the Technology Department his duties were to prepare a technology process of any part of the machinery to be produced in the Foundry, had to prepare the patterns in workable condition so that component part of the machinery could be produced properly, and had to do that work with his own hands. He also said that his work was checked by the Incharge and no person was subordinate to him. He lastly said that he had no power of hiring and firing and was not given any duty roster. He admitted that he was competent to grant leave but it was not his main job. In cross-examination he admitted that he came back from China on 26th June, 1978 and was suspended on 22-7-1978 and during the intervening. Period his designation was of Deputy Manager. He admitted that he had sanctioned leave applications Exhs.
D-3 to D-18 but added that he did so, because the Incharge, Riaz Hussain Bukhari was on leave or absent. He also admitted that A. C. R. Exh. D-19 was written by him. He also admitted that A. C. Rs.
Exhs. D-20 to D-23 were written by him. He admitted his signatures on the Group Nomination Form Exh. D-23. Admitted to have recommended disciplinary actions against :the workers vide Exhs. D-25 to D-28. He also admitted that when he was Deputy Manager, 92 workers were under him but he never worked as Deputy Manager in the Foundry. He, however, said that the. Main duty of the Deputy Manager was to do the work with his own hands but sometimes, he was given the duty of the Incharge of the Foundry and so far he was concerned he was doing the work with his own hands. He, however, admitted that he had to supervise if the workers did their job in accordance with the specifications. He admitted that his basic pay was Rs. 1,250 and total emoluments were Rs.
1,800 He admitted that service rules for the officers were framed and the respondents had been applying those rules upon them. He admitted that his duty was to check whether the workers were performing their duties in accordance with the schedule but added that he performed this duty only for some times. He further admitted that it was his duty to see that the parts being manufactured in the Foundry were according to the specifica--tion and that it was his duty to give instructions to the workers and foremen etc., to do the job in accordance with his directions. PW-2, who had been working as Assistant Manager, Deputy Manager and at the time he appeared. As a witness was a Manager said that the duty of the Assistant Manager was to prepare technology which is a designing work and that it was a hard work. He farther said that it was his duty to give every thing. By adopting which the parts could be manufactured in the Foundry. He said that his duty was also to prepare technology. He also said that the job of the appellant was to-give instructions and directions to the workers so that they could work in accordance with the prepared technology. He also said that the appellant was Deputy Manager in the Cost and Foundry Shop, who was the Incharge of the Shop and his duty was to get the entire work executed by the workers, but he had no power of hiring and firing although he was competent to grant leave. He also said that the appellant could recommend disciplinary action and could record the A.C. Rs. Of the workers. He lastly said that Mr. Cheema was Deputy Manager and he was the Incharge of the Cost and Foundry Shop. In cross-examination he said that in the section of Technology there were only Engineers and their duty was to do their work with the pencil and paper and they were not concerned very much with the Foundry work. Lastly, he said that since the appellant never worked under him, he could. Not say what duty he wag performing as Deputy Manager. Muhammad Ilyas, Manager, Heavy Foundry was examined as D. W 1, who stated that the Deputy Manager had no power of hiring and firing that the appellant was competent to grant leave for three days to the workmen as his subordinates, that in the molding section, there were four Works Supervisors and one Assistant Foreman and the appellant was responsible for the execution of work from his subordinates in accor--dance with the scheduled target. He said that the Deputy Manager had to record the A. C. Rs. Of the employees and, the appellant in that capacity had been doing so. He also said that the duty of the appellant was to see that all the workers attended their duties properly and were coming in time and that he used to report against the persons, who were late. - In cross-examination he said that all the Shops were controlled by the Deputy Manager (Production). He further said that the appellant had to do the supervisory job on the technical as well as on the administrative side and that all the disciplinary actions were dealt with by the Personnel Depart--ment of the Foundry. He admitted that all the subordinates of the appellant used to get guidance on the technical side from him. He lastly said that it was incorrect that the appellant had to demonstrate the working before the subordinates while giving them guidance.
The evidence of the parties discussed above clearly shows that the appellant had no ;managerial duties but his main duties were supervisory. It is not proved by this evidence that the appellant was doing manual work by preparing components himself. His duty was to get work done from others and to give them guidance. The subordinates have to work in accordance with his directions. His main duty was, therefore, supervisory. No doubt, P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 stated that the technology with the help of pencil and paper was done, but it was only a casual work. Moulding is done in this manner that first of all the article to be prepared is outlined on a paper and then according to it a pattern is prepared. The pattern is placed in a special material and pressed. Thereafter the pattern is very carefully removed from the said substance and in this way the marks of the pattern are left in the substance. The moulded material of which component is to be prepared is found in those marks and after it becomes solid it is removed ----The shape of such a thing is accord--ing to the pattern. Superfluous corners etc. Are removed by cuttings. When once a technology is prepared thousands 6f components can be prepared by moulding and there is no necessity of preparation of another technology for the same thing. However, when a new thing is to be prepared, first of all ' its technology will be prepared and then a carpenter will prepare the pattern of wood. It is thus clear that the main duty of the appellant was to see that the pattern according to' the technology prepared by him and that the moulding was being dole properly and correctly. The appellant admitted his signatures on the above-mentioned documents, which are leave applications, A. C.
Rs etc. His plea that he did this work in the absence of the Incharge, does not stand proved, because he has not proved the absence. He could call the leave application of the Incharge during the period he had sanctioned the leave applications, made A. C. Rs and recommended disciplinary actions, but he did not do so. This is, therefore, wrong that this was not his duty and that he performed this duty in the absence of some other Incharge. About 92 persons according to the evidence were working under him and he was supervising their work. Admittedly, his basic pay was Rs. 1,250 and total emoluments Rs. 1,800. He falls within A the Exception (b) of section 2, clause (xxviii) of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 and stands ousted from the definition of "workman".
3. The learned lower Court in these circumstances rightly held that the appellant was not a workman. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.