' The decision dated 5-5-1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent has been directed to be re- instated in service without back benefits.
2. The respondent is an officer Grade-I, On the allegations of misconduct he was delivered a charge-sheet Exh. P.1 and an enquiry was held, which culminated in his dismissal from service. As the case has not been argued on merits, the charge levelled against the respondent may not be re-capitulated here. They are detailed in the charge-sheet Exh, P.1. Enquiry was not properly held as no prosecution witness was examined and no opportunity was afforded to the respondent to produce defence evidence. The only point that has been argued is that the learned lower Court has wrongly held the respondent as a workman. The line of arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent is a power-of-attorney-holder and his duties being supervisory and pay exceeding .Rs,800, he is not covered by the definition of workman given in section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. On this point the statements of the respondent and R.W.3. Are relevant. According to the evidence, the duties of the respondent were to go through the inspection reports, to follow up the action to be taken on them, prepare drafts of letters to be signed by the Zonal Head, to look after the affairs of the five branches assigned to him and to make reports about the said branches to acquaint the Zonal Head of the affairs of the branches. The respondent had also said that no employee was under him nor he had any power to grant leave or take any action against any employee. R.W.3., no doubt, stated that the job of the respondent was of the supervisory nature and to look after but he has not explained how the respondent has been supervising and who were under him. He also said that the duty of the respondent was to visit the branches and to see that the inspection reports were complied with. He does not say that if the inspection reports were found not to have been complied with, what the respondent had to do. If the respondent had authority to call explanation of the defaulters, it may amount to some kind of supervision but if he only had to report to the Zonal Head, then supervision and control would be of the latter and not of the respondent. One cannot supervise effectively unless some kind of power is given, by exercising of which he can compel the willing or unwilling workers to perform their duties.
There is absolutely no evidence that the respondent had some degree of powers and control.
Without any power one can only request other to do work but cannot be said to supervise his work.
Again for the supervision it is necessary that the workers to be supervised should be under his personal control and they should feel his presence. The evidence of R.W.3 shows that the office of the respondent was located somewhere else and he used to visit the branches assigned to him. So, the workers are not under his personal supervision. It appears that while visiting the branches if he finds that some employees have not done their duties, he only reports to the Zonal Head. So, the employees would care for the Zonal Head and not for the respondent. The statement of the respondent that he had no powers to grant leave or to take any action goes un-rebutted as R.W.3.
Did not state anything in this respect. The other difficulty in holding the respondent as non- workman is that other condition given in exception (b) to section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 are not fulfilled. Clause (b) says that the wages should be in excess of Rs, 800 per month. There is absolutely no evidence on this point. Even the gradation list of the officers and employees is not on the record. His pay may be more than Rs, 800 per mensem as the respondent is Grade-I officer but we cannot act upon presumptions. The benefit of want of evidence on the point must go to the respondent. He was thus rightly adjudged as a workman under section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. We are not to be impressed by the designation but the duties actually performed are considered to decide the question. The definition given in section 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not relevant as the same Ordinance is not applicable to nationalised banks.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.