DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 31-3-1984, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No, 1, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant was originally appointed in the respondent-establishment in the year 1968 as Security Man and due to his promotion, from time to time, he was working as Manager Imports at the date of termination of his services in the year 1981.
According to the claim of the appellant, though he was working honestly and diligently and was getting promotions on account of his performance, yet, one Abdul Hameedi, General Manager, not only used to harass him but also used to record adverse entries in his A.C.Rs, That, in the year 1970, it was alleged that due to the conspiracy of the above General Manager, the appellant was removed from service but he was reinstated in service under the orders of the Labour Court and that on account of the continuous inimical attitude, the said General Manager had again succeeded in getting terminated the services of the appellant on 17-9-1981 on the ground that the post of Imports Manager stood abolished. Further, it was the case of the appellant that his removal from the employment was mala fide.
3. The respondent-establishment resisted the petition of the appellant on the ground, firstly, that as the appellant was not a workman, therefore, his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 was not legally maintainable; and secondly, that the services of the appellant were terminated as a result of abolition of the post of Manager Imports.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavit-in-evidence in support of their pleadings and they were duly, cross-examined. Thereafter the learned Labour Court has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. S.P. Lodhi, learned representative for the appellant and Mr. M. Rafat Usmani, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case.
6. It was argued on behalf of Mr. S.P. Lodhi that the primary nature of the duties being performed by the appellant were manual and clerical, therefore, he was a workman. Mr. Lodhi submitted that earlier in the year 1972, the appellant had been removed from service by the respondent establishment so, he tiled a grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, which was allowed by the Labour Court and subsequently the appellant was reinstated in service and in that order of the learned Labour Court, the appellant was held to be a 'workman' and this order of this learned Labour Court was not repelled by any superior Court, therefore, the status of the appellant as a 'workman' cannot be challenged at this belated stage and that merely by designating him as Imports Manager, at this stage, he is not ousted from the definition of the 'workman'. From the document, Annexure 'B' on the record of the learned Labour Court, mentioning the duties and functions of the appellant, it is fully proved that the appellant is a 'workman' also doing clerical and manual work, despite the fact that a Lady-typist, namely, Mrs. Suriya Jauhri, was posted with the appellant to assist him in the discharge of his duties of clerical and manual nature. There is nothing on record to prove that the appellant had any power of hire and fire over any staff of the respondent-establishment, even, on the Lady-typist. It is also an admitted position that as an `Imports Manager' the appellant was not an independent officer of the establishment, but, admittedly the appellant was directly under the control and supervision of the 'Purchase Manager' and then, under the General Manager for all affairs, particularly related to the administration of the department of which the appellant was allegedly a 'head of the Department'. In view of this factual and legal position, I would hold that the appellant was a 'workman' within the ambit of Labour Laws and was fully competent to maintain his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 in the Labour Court. The contention of Mr. M.Rafat Usmani, the learned counsel, on behalf of the respondent establishment that the appellant was getting more than Rs,4,000 per month as his salary, has no force. The quantum of salary does not bar a person from claiming as a workman.
There are a number of well financially sound and highly reputed establishments in Pakistan, which are paying more than Rs,1,200 per month as salary even, to a peon, but this salary does not bar him to claim himself as a peon or a 'workman' within the ambit of the Labour Laws. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court holding the appellant as not workman, and would hold him as a 'workman'.
7. As regards the merits of the case, there is an admitted position that in the year 1972 the appellant was also dismissed from service and at that time too, the stand of the appellant was that his dismissal was only on account of the enmity, revenge and disliking of the General Manager of the respondent-establishment and the dismissal order was set aside by the Labour Court and the appellant was reinstated in service.
Here, in the present case also, the removal of the appellant from his services by the General Manager was colourful, but under now a shelter of 'abolition' of the post which was held by the appellant. In view of the circumstances and facts of the case, this so-called 'abolition' of the post of `Imports Manager' is not justified, but it is clearly with mala fide intentions. I, therefore, hold that the removal of the appellant was incorrect and, hence, set aside.
8. For the reasons stated by me above, I would set aside the impugned order and would allow this appeal. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service with only 50% (fifty per cent) back benefits forthwith.