' The decision, dated 8th May, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed.
2. The appellant was an Accountant. The allegations for which he was dismissed from service were that he issued withdrawal slips for Rs, 1,6,164 on 18th July, 1981 from Saving Bank Account No, 2565 without verifying the balance from the ledger, that be misreported weekly position to the Head Office, Karachi showing Rs, 4,448 instead of Rs, 5,482 in the account, that cash of Rs, 1,768 was reported against item No, 41 to cover short reporting in a current account, and that weekly balance of all the ledgers was not done by the whole branch.
3. The learned lower Court has found that charges were not established but has returned the petition on the ground that the appellant not being a workman the Court lacks jurisdiction. The respondent has filed cross-objections also which are being disposed of alongwith the appeal.
4. The finding of the learned lower Court on the point of workman appears to be correct. The appellant on the point stated only this much and that too in answer to the Court's questions that he had no powers of hire and fire and could not grant leave to any employee. As regards his duties he said that he used to prepare drafts which were signed by the Manager and made telegraphic remittances and passed cheques within his competency. Regarding his basic pay he said that it was Rs, 825 p.m. R. W. 2 deposed that the appellant used to get work from five cashiers, three Assistants, and four gunmen. He also stated that the appellant used to check his work and the work of other Assistants in the branch. No question was put to R.W. 2 on the depositions referred to above. Powers of hire and fire are not necessary for officers whose duty is to supervise the work of others. Likewise, absence of power to grant leave would not bring one Within the ambit of the definition of workman. The requirement of exception (b) given in section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is that the nature of employment should be supervisory. Taking and checking work amounts to supervising the persons from whom work is taken or whose work is checked when it is being done. The evidence of R.W. 2 on the point stands unchallenged and uncontroverted which means that he had stated true facts. The appellant though was an Accountant but had supervisory powers and his basic pay being admittedly more than Rs, 800 per month, he falls within exception (b) and has been rightly adjudged by the learned lower Court as not a workman. However, Bxhs. R. I and R. 2 were not issued by the appellant in his capacity as a supervisor or an Accountant but he only temporarily acted as Manager in the latter's absence, so are not relevant to the point.
5. The pleas raised in cross-objection and argued by the learned counsel for the respondent are not impressive. The learned lower Court expressed its view on the merits of the case to avoid remand of the case if this tribunal happened to find that the appellant was a workman. Since the Labour Court had no jurisdiction, its findings on the points have no value and are simply to be ignored.
6. Likewise I do not find any force in the contention that without exhausting departmental remedy by way of appeal, the petition under B section 25-A was not maintainable. Para. 258 of the first Wage Commission Award do not say so.
7. There is no force in the contention that postal receipt was not sufficient to show that grievance notice was served. Since posting of the letter is proved and the letter did not come back un-served, the presumption is that it reached the addressee. If the respondent did not receive it, the postman should have been summoned by it.
8. This is true that according to section 38-D of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the decisions of the Wage Commission are the award of the N.I.R.C. But this argument is without force that the N.I.R.C. And not the Labour Court is competent to grant relief. The same section states that all the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 would apply to such an award, meaning thereby that section 25-A is applicable.
9. The objection that the learned lower Court had no territorial jurisdiction is without any substance as no evidence on the point can be found.
10. As a result, the appeal and cross-objection fail and are dismissed.