DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh ,about Court No, VI, Hyderabad, dated 28-8-1986 wherein he dismissed the relevance petition of the appellant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as 'Boiler supervisor' when his services were terminated on 16-4-1985. After service of relevance notice, he filed grievance petition in the Labour Court which was Dismissed on the ground that he was not a 'workman'.
3. I have heard Mr. Bashir Awan, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Raees M. Mushtaq, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
4. The only point for consideration is whether the appellant is a workman as defined under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The appellant examined himself and also examined one witness Iftikhar Ahmed in his support whereas the respondent did not examine any person. The burden of proof that the appellant was workman A was upon the appellant and as such non-examination of any witness by the respondent would not be fatal to their case.
5. In the grievance petition, as well as in the grievance notice, the appellant has not given any details of nature of his work. It is settled law, that it is not the designation but the work that the employee actually performs that would determine his status as workman. Reference in this respect is made to 1985 SCMR 1511. The only evidence with regard to his duties has been stated by the appellant in Para. 3 of his affidavit-in-evidence wherein he averred that he had to check the water, electricity and do the repair work if there was any break-down. His witness Iftekhar Ahmed also deposed to that effect. Iftikhar Ahmed also admitted that the appellant was working as Supervisor and he worked for some time under him. Admittedly the 'job assignment' showing the nature of duties was served upon him, which has been produced as Exh.R/1. Exh. R/1 shows his duties as under:- "(a) That you will act as a Supervisor Incharge over the workers in your shift.
(b) That during your duty hours you will be personally responsible with regard to the proper and efficient dischrage of duties by various workers working under you in your shift.
(c) That you will ensure that no worker leaves his place of work during duty hours without your prior written consent.
(d) That any worker working under you will have to apply for leave through you and you after verifying its fitness recommend/refuse leave to the concerned worker.
(e) That in case of any emergency or non-attendance of any worker/workers in the subsequent shift, you will detain the minmum possible workers on overtime with the consultation of the Engineer on duty."
6. The nature of the duties shown in the letter of assignment clearly shows that his duties were of supervisory nature. The only question is whether occasional manual work such as repairing work, in case of any break- down, would make him a workman. Mr. Bashir Ahmed Awan relied upon the case of Addul Ghaffar v. Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works Limited 1987 PLC 697 wherein learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court Karachi had observed that `Assistant Foreman, engaged in a work which is 'skilled' as well as 'manual' and having supervisory duties over his subordinate staff would be a workman'. Mr. Raees M. Mushtaq, on the other hand, relied upon 1971 PLC page 1 where in the case of the Workers of Bata Shoes Company Lahore v. Bata Shoes Co. Ltd their Lordships of the Supreme Court had observed that 'a foreman is a person who is holding supervision and management in a factory, cannot be held to be a workman only because of the fact that such person is doing something with his own hands by way of checking or testing work done by other workmen'.
7. Admittedly 15 persons were working in the section of which the appellant was 'boiler supervisor'.
The nature of his duties as are clear from the letter of 'job assignment' Exh. R/1 would definitely show that his main duties were of supervisory nature. Mere fact that he did testing or checking of the work done by other workmen, or did occassional repairs in the boiler would not make him workman in view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above.
8. The appeal is dismissed.