DECISION ' This appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the Sind Labout Court No, IV, Karachi, wereby he dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant. The order was passed on 2nd November, 1983.
2. The facts are that the appellant was employed by the respondent corporation on 17th December, 1978 as Assistant Permanent Way Inspector, Railway Wing, Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation. The appellant requested his immediate Boss Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan to return of friendly loan of Rs, 2,500 which annoyed the Executive Engineer Abdul Majeed Khan. On 12th July, 1982, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant alleging that the appellant exchanged hot words, abused and threatened the said Abdul Majeed Khan. Subsequently a departmental enquiry was conducted and the appellant was dismissed on 15th September, 1982. On 22nd September, 1982, the appellant preferred a departmental appeal with the respondent Corporation which was rejected on 17th December, 1982. A grievance notice was given and it was rejected on 2nd January, 1983. On 17th January, 1983 the appellant filed an application under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 challenging his dismissal.
3. The stand taken by the respondent Corporation is that the application is barred by limitation and that the appellant was not a workman within the competence of Standing Orders.
4. I have heard the learned counsel Mr. H. A. Jaffery on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Kamal Mansur Alam, Advocate, for the respondent Corporation.
5. The evidence recorded by the learned Labour Court indicates that the appellant was a supervisor and did supervisory work over the workmen and labours. The evidence led by the appellant himself is that in the Earth Work Department there were 60 to 70 workers. He was doing office work. His designation was supervisor. There was excavation work which was done by the labours. He used to prepare bills of the labours. His basic pay was Rs, 1,000 and he received allowances and other remuneration upto Rs, 950 more. This piece of evidence is commented upon by the Labour Court and the observation of the Labour Court is that he is essentially a supervisor and by preparing bills of the labours which were incidental do not make him a workman. According to the Labour Court he is not a workman and that he was supervising the labours who excavated the earth. Another witness, Shafiq Khan in cross-examination has stated that the appellant was working on the site of Excavation. Labours used to do excavation work. The third witness, Akhtar Jaffery was given up. The witness, Mr. Younus states that the appellant was working as Permanent Way Inspector. He used to mark attendance of the labours and prepare the bills. His evidence is rejected by the learned Labour Court on the grounds that incidental marking the attendance or preparing bills was not enough to make him a workman. While Fayyaz Ahmed the witness of the Management has stated that his work was purely supervisory in nature, i,e, the control, check and maintain the railway tracks. He worked in the capacity of a supervisor till he was dismissed.
6. Overall the nature of evidence on record shows that the appellant was a supervisor and does not come within the definition of a workman or a worker.
7. As regards the issue of limitation, from the dates mentioned in the memo of appeal, the grievance petition was filed within time. Even though the grievance notice and petition was within time, the appellant was not a worker and his job was mainly supervisory over the labours of excavation of earth. The Labour Court has come to a correct decision, therefore, I maintain it and dismiss this appeal accordingly.