DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,VI, at Hyderabad, dated 14-1-1985, whereby he allowed the grievance petition of the respondent and ordered him to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.
2. I have heard Mr. Raees M. Mushtaq, learned. Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Khan, learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The brief facts of the case are, that the respondent was appointed as a permanent Helper at the Mechanised Training Centre of the appellants at Mirpurkhas on 21-1-1982. On 16-6-1982 his services were terminated without any reason for termination of service. After serving grievance notice the respondent filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court which was, however, dismissed by the learned Labour Court by order, dated 20-11-1982 on the ground that Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968, were not applicable to the appellants establishment. However, in appeal, this Tribunal vide order, dated 3-5-1983, held that the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance would be applicable to the case of the respondent if he was not servant of the Corporation, as defined under sub-rule (2) of rule 1 of the Sindh Small Industries and Handicrafts Development Corporation Service Rules. 1978 (hereinaftar referred to as the 'Rules'). The case was remanded back to the learned Labour Court where the parties led evidence. The learned Labour Court decided the case in favour of respondent.
4. The main question that requires consideration is whether proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was attracted in the case of the appellant, which provides that, "nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to industrial and commercial establishments carried on by or under the authority of the Federal or any Provincial Government, where statutory rules of service; conduct or discipline are applicable to the workmen employed therein".
5. The Service Rules of the appellants arc applicable to the 'Corporation servants' as defined in sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of the said rules which defines `Corporation servant' as under:- "Corporation servant" means a person holding a post in connection with the affairs of the Corporation but does not include:
(i) a person who is on deputation to the Corporation from Government or the Federal Government or any other authority; or
(ii) a person who is employed on contract or on charged basis, or who is paid from working capital; or
(iii) a person who is a "worker" or "workman" as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934) or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (XIII of 1923)."
' Thus the Rules would not be applicable to the case of the respondent, if he is a 'worker' as defined under the Factories Act, 1934 or 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. A 'worker' is defined under section 2(h) of the Factories Act, 1934 as under:-
(h) "Worker" means a person employed directly or through an agency whether for wages or not, in any manufacturing process, or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process, or in any other kind of work whatsoever, incidental to or connected with the subject of the manufacturing process, but does not include any person solely employed in a clerical capacity in any room or place where no manufacturing process is being carried on." `Factory' is defined under section 2(j) of the daid Act as under:-
(j) "factory" means any premises, including the precincts thereof, whereon ten or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on or is ordinarily carried on with or without the said power, but does not include a mine, subject to the operation of tho Mines Act, 1923 (IV of 1923)."
' Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 a 'workman' has been defined under section 2(n) as under:-
(n) "workman" means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employer's trade or business who is -- (i)
(ii) employed on monthly wages not exceeding one thousand five hundred rupees, in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II."
6. It is admitted that the appellant was working as helper at the Training Centre of the appellants at Mirpurkhas but he himself was neither 'student' nor `apprentice'. Admittedly he used to clean machines and he was required to do any other work as may be directed by the Instructors.
Respondent, in his affidavit-in-evidence, has alleged that 'Training Centres', established at different places are required to do manufacturing work as per orders booked by the Corporation. In the cross-examination, he had admitted that training was being imparted to boys in that Centre but has denied the suggestion that no commercial work was done there. He had alleged that work was being done on outside orders and that appellant had its own sales centre for goods at Tilak Charri at Hyderabad. He states to have given a copy of the order of work from Dadu to his Advocate but could not produce the same as Advocate had not come on that date.
7. The Mechanized Training Centre at Mirpurkhas was established under the Development Project of the Planning Commission of Government of Pakistan. The PC-1 Form of such Project has been produced as Exh. R/1. Column 9 of this PC-1 Form shows that one Project viz. Mechanized Training Centre was to be established one each in the Districts of Sanghar, Mirpurkhas, Larkana and Dadu.
Column 10 shows that Centre was to produce skilled hands in the trade and as such no production was envisaged to meet the expenditure and it was proposed to be financed from the Block Provision by the Government under the First Five Years Plan. Apart from the word of the respondent there is no evidence to show that the Centre was running on `commercial basis' or was producing any goods for sale.
8. There is no evidence to show that more than ten workers were working in the Training Centre or any 'manufacturing process' was being carried on in the Centre. 'Manufacturing Process' has been defined under section 2(g) of the Factories Act as under:-
(g) "manufacturing process" means any process--
(i) for making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing or packing, or otherwise treating any article or substance with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal, or
(ii) for pumping oil, water or sewage or
(iii) for generating, transforming or transmitting power."
There is no evidence to now that any goods were manufactured in the Centre for the purposes mentioned in aforesaid definition of manufacturing process. Therefore the respondent would not fall within the category of worker as defined under the Factories Act.
9. I have also gone through Schedule II of Workmen's Compensation Act and also do not find that helper working in Training Centre even cleaning machinery would fall in any category mentioned in Schedule II to Workmen's Compensation Act. No doubt he was drawing pay of less than Rs,1,500 per month, but he would be considered workman only if was working in any capacity as specified in Schedule II. Mere fact that he was entitled to payment of compensation, if incident occurred during the working hours and he was injured, which fact is admitted by the witness of appellants, would not make him workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Such compensation to the employees is payable even under the Law of Torts.
10. In my opinion, on carefully going through the evidence on record, I do not find that the respondent falls within the category of workman as defined under the Factories Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act and therefore would not be excluded from the definition of the 'servant of the Corporation'. Consequently Standing Orders Ordinance would not be applicable to the case of the respondent who is servant of the Corporation which is a 'Statutory Body' having its own 'Statutory Rules' of service and is an establishment carried on by and under the authority of the Provincial Government. The proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance would exclude the application of the said Ordinance to the "servants of the Corporation".
11. The order of appointment of the respondent has been produced as Exh. A/6, which is dated 21-1- 1982, which shows that he had been appointed on probation for a period of one year. Under clause 6 of this order 'during the period of probation his appointment would be terminable by the Corporation without notice and without assigning any reason'. His services were terminated by order, dated 16-6-1982, which has been produced by the respondent alongwith the grievance application as Exh. A/1. It shows that his services had been terminated and no notice was required as he was still on 'probation'. Thus the services of the respondent had been terminated in accordance with rules and the terms of appointment.
12. I, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.