This appeal is directed against a decision of the learned IVth Labour Court, given on 19th January, 1983, dismissing the grievance petition preferred by the appellant against the order, dated 10th June, 1982, terminating his services on 3 months' notice pay.
2. The facts of this case, shortly stated, are that the appellant has been in the employment of the respondent Corporation! Since l 6th March, 1971. He was originally appointed as an Assistant and later in July, 1979, he was promoted as Assistant Manager It appears that the appellant's post--ing as Assistant. Manager was originally in the R & I Section of the Telecom--munication Department, but subsequently, in August, 1981, he was trans--ferred to the Power Engineering Department which is headed by the Chief Engineer (Power). It was whip; the appellant was working in this department, that his services were terminated, vide order, dated 10th June, 1982. The appellant challenged the orders of his termination of services before the learned IVth Labour Court which has dismissed his grievance petition on the ground that the appellant was an officer and not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders and hence he was not entitled to prefer a grievance petition against the termination of his services. Aggrieved by this decision, tile appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
3. I have heard Mr. Choudhry Rasheed Ahmad, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Kamal Mansur Alam, Advocate, who appeared for the respondent Corporation. Mr. Choudhry Rasheed Ahmad relied upon the duties of the appellant spelt out in the Memorandum of the Chief Engineer (Power), dated 23rd September, 1981, while Mr. Kamal Mansur Alam referred to the functions and duties of the appel--lant on his promotion to the grade of Assistant Manager. The learned Labour Court, in holding that the appellant was an officer and not a work--man for the purposes of the Standing Orders, has relied upon a number of pieces of evidence and circumstances. The first two documents relied upon by it in this behalf are the letter of appointment of the appellant as Assistant Manager and his joining report. These indicate that the appellant had been promoted and joined as Assistant Manager. Although these 2 documents do certainly indicate that the appellant had arisen from the clerical position to the post of an officer in the _managerial grade. It is now well-established that it is not the designation of the post, which an employee is holding that determines whether he is or A is not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders, but the nature of duties for which he is employed and which he is actually performing which is the most important factors in this behalf. The next document relied upon by the learned Labour Court in this behalf is the specimen signature of the appellant which was circulated to all concerned departments intimating them that his signature in the corres--pondence emanating from the Telecommunication Department may be honoured. This document again does indicate that the appellant was holding a post of some importance in the respondent Organization but does not throw light upon the exact nature of his duties. Moreover, the circulation of the appellant's signature was for the purposes of work that he was employed to do in the Telecommunication Depart--ment, and not in the Power Engineering Department. The learned. Labour Court bas also relied upon the evidence of witness M. A. Lashari as to the nature of the duties which were being performed by the appellant. These duties and functions, according to the witness were to take interview of persons applying for jobs to the respondents, issuing interview letters, accepting joining reports of employees, referring cases of employees to Police for verification of antecedents, recom--mending persons for appointment on jobs in the Pakistan Steel, cancelling the appointment letters, getting the pay of subordinate staff stopped, assigning duties to his subordinate staff, notifying acceptance of resigna--tion of staff, directing issuance of punch cards, writing and filling of A. C. Rs. Of his subordinate staff and issuing memorandum/letters etc. A number of documents and letters were produced by witness M. A. Lashari which support his statement that the above functions were being performed by the appellant while he was posted in the R & I Section of the Telecommunication Department. Since the appellant had been transferred to the Power Engineering Department some 10 months prior to the order terminating his services, the duties and the functions per--formed by him while posted in the R & I Section are unimportant but his duties and functions in the Power Engineering Department have to be considered. The next piece of evidence which the learned Labour Court has considered in this behalf are the emoluments of the appellant and the privileges and benefits which he was enjoying as an officer in the respondent organization. The learned Labour Court has pointed out that the appellant, at the time of termination of his services was draw--ing basic salary of Rs. 1,425 and about Rs. 1,200 by the different allowances. The learned Labour Court has further indicated that the workmen travelled by bus, while the appellant, being an officer of the respondent organization travelled by a van. Although the emoluments and the benefits enjoyed by a person or attached to his post maybe one of the factors to be considered in determining whether he is a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders or an officer, it I B not the determining or even-'the most important factor in this behalf. The determining factor is whether he was employed to do manual or clerical work, skilled or unskilled.
4. It was sought to be argued by Mr. Kamal Mansur Alam that what has to be considered is the nature of the duties which the appellant was required .To perform and was actually performing at the time of promotion to the rank of an Assistant Manager and not necessarily the duties which he was performing at the time of termination of his services. 1 have already indicated that the appellant was transferred from the R & I Section of the Telecommunication Department some 10 months prior to the termination of his services. As such, it is the nature of duties which the appellant was performing and was required t perform in the Power Engineering Department which determine whether he is a workman .For the purposes of the Standing Orders and not the nature of his duties which he was performing in any other section or at the time of his original promotion as an Assistant Manager. Similar views have been expressed by me in the case of Mumtaz Ahmed v.
Rice Export Corporation, decided on 4th August, 1982. In the instant case the nature of duties which the appellant was required to perform while posted in the Power Engineering Department are detailed in paragraph 2 of the' Memorandum of the Chief Engineer (Power), dated 23rd September, 1981. These duties are as follows :- -(a) To maintain up-to-date record of all technical matters such as operation of T. P. P.-T. B. S., Gas Facilities, Water Supply and Sewerage etc.,
(b) To maintain and keep the personal files of the staff and put up to Chief Engineer (Power) as and when summoned and required him.
(c) To make enquiries and collect informations from different depart--ments as directed by Chief Engineer (Power) and to submit the same to him.
(d) To check/scrutinize the purchase, ' indents, overtime claim forms.
(e) To maintain leave record of the staff under the administrative control of C. E. (Power).
(f) To maintain, the record/file of purchases of office equipments, materials, stationery etc.
(g) To do all other incidental and connected to the above duties as assigned by C. E. (Power) from time to time.
(h) To prepare notes, drafts as instructed by C. E. (Power).
(i) To prepare various reports and information as required by C. E, (Power).
A bare perusal of the duties indicate that the appellant was required to perform duties which are mainly clerical in nature: However, although an officer may be entrusted with duties which are basically clerical in nature, his 'functions may be merely to get such work performed through staff assigned to him for this purpose and his role may be supervisory in that he is required to guide his staff in performing clerical duties and L to check their work. In the instant case, though there is no evidence on the record to indicate that any staff was assigned to the appellant for assisting him for the performance of his duties, it was contended by Mr. Kamal Mansur Alam that an opportunity may be given to the parties to lead evidence on this issue, as according to him there was staff assigned for this purpose.
5. There is, however, another ground upon which I consider that the case ought to be remanded to the Labour Court . Even if the appellant is held to be a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders, the further question that would arise, would be whether the services of, the appellant have been terminated in accordance with the provisions of clauses (1) and '(3) of Standing Orders 12 and 13. The -points which have to be considered in this behalf are whether the appellant was the junior most officer in his category, whether the work which was assigned to him in the Power Engineering Department has ceased to exist or has been so much reduced that it is considered unnecessary to appoint an officer for doing such work; and whether any other officer has been posted in the place of the appellant after termination of his services. The determination of these points requires evidence and for this reasonable opportunity of leading such evidence has to be given to both the parties.
6. For the reasons discussed , by me above, I would set aside the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court and would remand the case back to the learned Labour Court for decision- on the 2 - issues stated above, after giving reasonable 'opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in respect of the said points.