This is an appeal against the decision of the learned Chairman, Punjab Labour Court, Northern Zone, Lahore, passed under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 whereby the petition of Muhammad Ramzan was dismissed on the legal objection that he was not a workman.
2. The facts of the case are that appellant was employed as a mechanic with the Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Lahore, on 26 8-1947.-He was promoted as a foreman in 1958. He was retired on 24-8-1971 vide order Exh. P-2. On 30-8-1971 he went up In appeal which was dismissed on 5-11-1971 without giving him a hearing. He then filed a revision, which was dismissed on 27-7-1972.
3. Now the point which requires determination is as to whether the cause of action accrued to the appellant on 24-8-1971 when he was retired or on 27-7-1972 when his revision was dismissed. In the case F. A. Khan v. The Government of West Pakistan (PLD 1964 SC 520) before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the facts were that the appellant was employed as Inspector in the Land Customs Department. On the basis of certain charges he was dismissed by the order of the Collector of Lard Customs on 15-8-1950. He filed an appeal against the order of the Collector More the Central Board of Revenue (who had jurisdiction to hear the appeal) and the appeal was dismissed on 7-5-1952.
On 25-E-1958, he filed a suit out of which this appeal arose for a declaration that the order of dismissal was void and': inoperative and that he continued to hold the post of an Inspector. The defendant, i. e., the Pakistan Government raised the preliminary objection that the suit was governed be the residuary Article 120 of the Limitation Act which provide for a period of six years from the date the right to sue accrues and in this case the right to sue had ac.-rued on 15-8-1950 and so, the suit was barred by time. It was held:- "That the right to sue accrued, in the circumstances of this case, on the dismissal of the appeal and that the suit was within Muhammad time according to Article 120, Limitation Act (IX of 1908), and Ramzan after excluding the period of notice of two months under section 80, C. P. C. (V of 1908).--- In the case, Bashir Ahmad v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 271) it was Corpn. Observed:- "These documents leave no doubt in my mind that the appellant did file an appeal against the order of his dismissal and the same is still pending adjudication before the appellate authority. The mere fact that it is not traceable will not show that it is pending before the appellate authority. In view of this, it is quite clear that the appeal of the appellant is still pending and be is still in service of the respondent."
In view of the aforementioned decision I hold that the cause of action accrued to the appellant on 27-7-1972 and not only 24-8-1971.
4. Now the next question for determination is as to whether the appellant Is- a workman as defined under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Section 2 (xxviii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 reads as follows:- "'Worker' and 'workman' mean any person not falling within the definition of employer who is employed (including employment as a supervisor or as an apprentice) in an establish--ment or industry for hire or reward either directly or through a contractor whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied, and for the purpose -of any proceeding under this Ordinance in relation to an Industrial dispute include a person who has been dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid old' or otherwise removed from employment in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge retrenchment, lay-off, or removal has led to that dispute.
Explanation. 'Supervisor' means a worker immediately above the lowest level of workers in an establishment or Industry who has supervisory duties but no power to engage or remove, or take any other disciplinary action against another worker by his own authority."
From the above it is clear that the employees who perform these supervisory duties have been added in the definition of workman by the Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972. The according to the above definition any person who is employed in an establishment or industry for hire or reward and who does not fall within the definition of an employer is a workman irrespective of the fact that his duties involve manual labour or are supervisory in nature.
5. In the present case the appellant bas admitted that workshop cleaners and greasers are promoted as fitter and fitters are promoted as mechanics and mechanics as foremen. It cannot be said that workshop cleaners, greasers, fitters and mechanics are not workmen. Therefore, a foreman is a worker immediately above the last level of workers in the establishment and as such he is a worker as dunned in the above definition of a worker.
Under these circumstances, I accept the appeal, set aside the order of the learned lower Court and remand the case back for decision on merit.