' The decision dated 21st April, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal. The learned lower Court has directed the appellant to pay to the respondents bonus for the years 1979-80. The claim to the bonus is based upon the settlement of 1969 arrived at between P. R. T. B. And employees union. Since P. R. T. B. Was bifurcated, the workers sent to P. U. T. C. Claim benefit of the above-mentioned settlement. Bonus was paid up to 1979 but was refused thereafter to the employees serving in NPS-16 and above.
2. It has been argued that the respondents being Assistant Traffic Managers are out of the definition of workman and thus are not entitled to bonus and to bring application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Reference has been made to my unreported judgments dated 28th April, 1982 in Appeal No, Lhr-488/79-Punjab titled as P. R. 7'. B. v. Muhamniad Afzal Chishti'. I did hold that the Assistant Traffic Manager of P. R. T. B. Is not a worker in view of his duties enumerated in the duty roster. The duty roster Exh. R.-1 produced in the present case is verbatim the same as the one produced in P. R. T. B's. Case referred to above, except with one additional item No 2 which enjoins upon the Assistant Traffic Manager to prepare bus schedules, time tables and duty rosters of traffic staff for approval by the District Manager/Traffic Manager.
According to this item, the Assistant Traffic Managers have to do some writing work, but it is not of routine nature. The work is of much importance. In reality bus schedules, time tables and duty rosters are designed. The work requires the application and conscentration of mind, brain and experience. Moreover, this kind of work is not done daily. Bus schedules and time tables remain in force for about six months and are changed according to the change in the season. So they are prepared only twice a year. Duty rosters are prepared only once. Thereafter, according to necessity, changes are made but whole complexion of duties is not changed. No manual and very little clerical work is to be done according to the duties given in Exh. R-1. So far as item No, 1 is concerned.
The primary duty is of the Traffic Manager and the Assistant Traffic Manager has only to assist him.
No clerical work is to be done by both of them in connection with breakdowns and accidents. There is clerical staff in the office of the Traffic Manager and clerical work can be taken from them, for the preparation of traffic returns. Duty rosters are not prepared daily as mentioned above. Under item No, 3 the Assistant Traffic Manager has to attend to, and consider the public complaints and suggestions both regard to bus timings, bus stops, traffic irregularities and bus shelters. Brain is to be applied for making suggestions abide by are placed before the Traffic Manager. Recording of suggestion is not the main duty but is ancillary to the main duty of attending the complaints and initiating and inviting suggestions and solutions. Item No, 4 deals with purely supervisory duty. The duty of the Assistant Traffic Manager given in item No, 5 is to ensure the payment of road tax and to see that tax tokens are duly exhibited on the vehicles. It does not require any clerical work. Item No, 6 deals with suggestions based upon knowledge and experience. Item No, 8 enjoins upon the Assistant Traffic Manager to assist the Traffic Manager in the compilation of traffic surveys and statistics, graphs time tables and bus schedules for the crew. This is idle to think that the whole of compilation work will be done by the Traffic Manager and Assistant Traffic Manager with their own hands. Obviously they will utilise the services of clerks and typists. Item No, 9 does not say that the Assistant Traffic Manager will himself maintain accounts. But says that it will be his responsibility for the maintenance of accounts. It is thus manifest that he has to see that accounts are being maintained. It is crystal clear from the duty roster Exh. R-1 that main duties of the Assistant Traffic Manager are neither manual nor clerical but are much more supervisory. So the respondents are not Covered by the definition of workmen as given in section 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
3. In the present case we are more concerned with the definition of Workman given in section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. This is manifest particularly from items Nos. 4 and 7 that the duties given in them are cent per cent supervisory. According to item No, 4, the Assistant Traffic Managers have to supervise the work of Yardmasters, Assistant Yardmasters, Chief Inspectors etc. And have to make surprise checking of the work. According to item No, 7, the Assistant Traffic Managers, if they are incharge of Headquarters or sub-office and workshops, have to do not only supervisory duty but the general administration over the said office, is also within their duties. The ensuring of the doing of the work and responsibility to see that the work is done, are also supervisory duties. When one has to do work himself, he had not to give surety for the doing of it. Necessity of giving assurance arises only when the person giving assurance has to get the work done by others. Item No, 9 clearly shows that the accounts are not to be maintained by the Assistant Traffic Manager himself. If he had himself to maintain accounts, the direction would have been that the Assistant Traffic Managers would themselves maintain the account. Since the Assistant Traffic Managers have to get accounts maintained from others, therefore, responsibility was thrown upon the Assistant Traffic Managers Abdul Hakeem, one of the respondents, stated that his basic pay and that of all the respondents, except S. Talib Hussain Shah, was Rs, 800 and that of Talib Hussain Shah was Rs, 785. Admittedly, they are getting allowances. Break-up of wages has not been given, but certain allowances come within the definition of wages such as dearness allowance and house rent. The difference being very small the wage of the respondent exceed Rs, 800 including such allowances that tome within the definition of 'wages'. The respondents have supervisory duties and their wages being more than Rs, 800 per mensem, they are out of the pale of workman as defined in section 2. (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
4. It has been argued that bonus was previously paid to the Assistant Traffic Managers also and was stopped under the instructions of the Ministry which was that bonus should not be given to the employees serving in NPS-16 and above. These instructions cannot overrule the settlement till it remains effective.
5. Since the respondents are not workmen, they could not invoke the provisions of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. As a result of what has been said above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, dismiss the grievance petition of the respondents.