' The decision dated 4th December, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, whereby Muzaffar All (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. The respondent has claimed back benefits in his appeal, whereas Bata (Pakistan) Limited (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of reinstatement of the respondent. As both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent has been wrongly declared by the learned lower Court as a workman. The respondent admitted in cross- examination that there were eight persons under him. He did not say what they used to do when he was repairing the machines himself. The evidence of R W-1 is that the duty of the respondent was to supervise the working of the mechanics that ordinarily Foremen do not perform duties by hand, unless a mechanic is unable to remove the defects in which situation they guide the mechanics by doing the work themselves. RW-1 admitted that the Foremen prepared salary statements of mechanics which usually are ten to twelve. R W-2 gave the basic pay of the respondent as Rs, 1,142 and allowances as Rs, 466.32.
3. If Foremen do repairs of machines themselves then there is no need of employing mechanics.
Since eight mechanics are under the respondent, they have to do the work of repairing.
Occasionally, the act of repairing the machines when the mechanics feel difficulty would not make the Foreman as a workman. Their main duty is to supervise the working of mechanics and to guide them when they feel difficulty. Salary statements of the mechanics are not prepared daily but weekly or monthly. So this is a casual kind of work and is not sufficient to bring the Foreman within the pale of workman. So far as section 2(i) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is concerned, show- cause notices like Exh. R-6 were being signed by the respondent. No doubt, the Manager's initials also appear but he only endorsed the show-cause notice. Leave applications were also recommended by the respondent as admitted by him. These are the duties of supervisor. Since his basic pay is Rs, 1,142, i,e, more than Rs, 800, so the respondent stands ousted from the definition of workman. I have held in 1983 PLC 365 that Foremen of Bata Company are not workmen, and so has been held by the Supreme Court in 1971 PLC 1. Learned counsel for the respondent has cited 1977 PLC 580 but the same is distinguishable. The evidence in that case was that the Foreman was preparing cars with his own hands. The learned lower court has, therefore wrongly held that the respondent is a workman.
4. As a result, the appeal of the appellant is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed. As the very direction of reinstatement stands set aside, no question of allowing back benefits arises. So the appeal of the respondent is dismissed.