' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 16th January, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re- instatement was dismissed.
2. The appellant was a Sales Inspector and, thereafter was promoted as Sales Representative on which post he was confirmed on 11th January, 1977. A complaint was received against him in the same month to the effect that he was indulging in corrupt practices. His explanation was called but no further action was taken. In September, 1978 another complaint was received to the effect that he had obtained a resignation from a distributor by coercion. He was charge sheeted on 24th September, 1978. Another report was received from the Martial Law Headquarters Zone 'A' to the effect that he was in the habit of creating artificial shortage, that he was in league with two distributors and used to instigate the retailers to sell the goods in black market. His case was heard by the Chairman personally and he was dismissed vide order, dated 15th October, 1978. The points which came for decision before the lower Court were that the appellant was not a workman under the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and thus the petition was not maintainable. There is another objection also but the learned trial Judge has given his finding only on the point of workman and finding that the appellant is not covered by the definition of workman, according to the nature of his duties, has dismissed his petition. On behalf of the appellant a Supreme Court authority was cited, but the year of its citation is not given.
According to the learned trial Judge, a salesman was held to be a workman in that authority. To declare that the appellant was not covered by the definition of workman as given in section 2 (i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 the learned trial Judge relied upon the job summary Exh. D-4 in which the duties of the sales representative are given. The learned trial Judge has reproduced the whole document therefore, it need not be reproduced again here. The duties enumerated in the above-mentioned document show that the work of the sales representative is not of routine nature requiring the application of initiative. The duties were not purely clerical. The sales representative according to his duties has to apply brain and mind and has to watch the market and the stock and to come to a conclusion whether the stock is adequate to meet the demands or is in excess or is short. He has also to watch the work of the distributors, which is not a work of routine nature. If the distributors do not distribute the stock honestly and according to rules, it has a bad effect upon the goods and reputation of the company. If the distributors are selling goods in black market it adversely affects the business. Obviously a shrewed brain is required to watch all these things. If there are transport difficulties for the transportation of goods for being distributed to the agents, he has to apply his brain to find out the means how to remove the difficulties and for this purpose he has to visit the concerned authorities, road transporters and railway authorities. If the sales representative is not expert and upto the mark, goods cannot reach according to the demand. If the goods are delayed, naturally the consumers will purchase the other goods which are available in the market. To check that goods are being properly distributed by the distributors and agents, the stock registers are to be checked by the sale representative and send periodical returns to the company accordingly. He has also to see that no amount is outstanding against the distributors payable to the company. If any distributor or agent is found to be not working properly, or is corrupt, he has to move for his removal or the termination of his agency. This is not a routine work but requires lot of understanding. Clerical work which the sales representative is required to do is not his main duty but ancillary to his main functions. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited so many authorities, but the authorities which need discussion are PLD 1976 Kar. 73, 1976 PLC 470 and 1973 PLC 409. So far as the first mentioned authority is concerned, it has been observed that it is the work done by an employee which is the criterion to see whether he is covered by the definition of workman or not. It has also been observed that the mere fact that he is performing supervisory duties is no bar if otherwise according to the nature of his main duties, he is covered by the definition of workman given in section 2 (i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
In 1976 PLC 470 an Assistant Import Officer having no power of employing or terminating the services and had power of grant of leave only was held to be a workman. In 1973 PLC 409, an Inspector Incharge of a Cotton Branch who was exercising no powers of employment or removal was held to be not an employer but a workman. This ruling is not relevant, because it is about the definition of workman given in section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, whereas we have to see whether the appellant comes within the ambit of the definition of workman given in section 2 (i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. On the contrary it has been held in PLD 1961 SC 403 that "the person who was engaged exclusively in the field of distribution through proper agencies of the products of the company is not assailable either to the group of workers whose manual labour contributes to that product, or those of the clerical establishment who perform the paper work connected with the operation of the company. The work of the salesman is in a wholly different category from manual work or clerical work, salesmen do not fall within the definition of 'workman'. "The salesman who had been held not to be a workman in the above-mentioned authority was an employee of Tobacco company and his duty was distribution, through proper agencies of the products of the company. In the present case the appellant is above the salesman but he too is employed for the distribution of goods. So the Supreme Court authority cited by the learned counsel for the respondent supports the case of the respondent. Rather the case of the respondent is more strong in view of the duties of the sales representative enumerated in Exh. D-4.
1980 PLC 380 is again to the effect that a sales representative with assignment of introducing products of the company to promote and push sale but was not performing any skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical work, except very little clerical work incidental to the main assignment was not held to be a workman. This authority also supports the case of the respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has tried to argue other points but since the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition on the sole ground that the appellant is not covered by the definition of workman given in the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and thus had no right guaranteed by the said Ordinance, it is not necessary to discuss the other points. The learned lower Court has rightly found that according to the nature of duties of the appellant, he is not covered by the definition of workman. I do not find any force in the appeal which is dismissed.