DECISION ' The circumstances in which this appeal has arisen shortly stated are as follows:--
2. The appellant joined the respondents as "Air-Conditioning Mechanic" in November, 1982 and was promoted as Ramp Supervisor with effect from 1-2-1988. On 14-12-1989; he was served with show- cause notice which had better be reproduced in extenso: "You were involved in the case of smu ggling of 3500 tolas of gold in Pakistan on 8th April, 1988 through the Flight No, LH-634 involving the Coaster No, SAPS-073 of this Organization. You were tried alongwith the others by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi under the Customs Act, 1969 and have been held guilty and awarded the penalty of Rs,1 lac (one lac) vide Order No, SIB/38/88, dated 15th November, 1989 which also directs this Organization to take appropriate action against its employees involved in the case. A photocopy of the said Order is attached herewith, the contents of which are self-explanatory.
' You are, therefore, directed to show cause in writing within seven days of the receipt of this letter as to why your services be not terminated in accordance with the terms of your employment in the Management Cadre on your having become undesirable for the employment of the Organization due to loss of faith/confidence in you and your involvement in the above case, spoiling the goodwill and reputation of the Organization."
3. The appellant had replied to the same and his services came to be terminated by letter, dated 3-1-1990 as his continuance in employment was hardly desirable in the circumstances referred to in the notice. He was informed that "you may collect your full and final settlement dues including one month's salary in lieu of due notice from our Accounts Department."
4. The grievance notice was thereafter served by the appellant, followed by the grievance petition before the Labour Court.
5. The appellant was the only witness in the case and there was evidence of Wing Commander Aftab Ahmad Khan from the side of the respondents.
6 Mr. Khadim Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant maintained that the appellant was a workman and as .Here was no enquiry held against him at all, there was no compliance of the procedure as envisaged under Standing Order 15 and the order suffering from that infirmity was liable to be quashed. The submission of Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, the learned representative for the respondents on the other hand was that the appellant was from the Management Cadre as a Ramp Supervisor and, therefore, all that was required under the law was to terminate his services with one month's notice coupled with the payments of all dues under law to him and this was done by the respondents.
7. It has to be seen that on 21-9-1986, the appellant applied for the post of Ramp Supervisor and was so promoted from 1-2-1988. The authorities took care to say that they had promoted him to the position of the Management Classification of employees and alongwith the letter were enclosed the terms and conditions of his service and his duties vide Appendices 'A' and 'B'.
8. The first document, Enclosure 'A' had 14 prescribed duties, of which notice might be taken of a few: ' Will check the strength of his shift and quantum of work for his shift to assist Ramp Coordinator to have sufficient number of drivers and loaders according to work load.
(4) Will detail M.T. Drivers/Operators to clean and carry out the daily inspection of the vehicles before these are booked out for duty.
(5) Will receive requisitions and provide ground handling service to various airlines as per their request and detail the vehicles/equipment and men for the scheduled aircraft one hour before the estimated arrival of the aircraft.
(6) Will detail appropriate and qualified M.T. Drivers/Operators on the vehicles/equipment being scheduled for the duty.
(7) Will maintain the daily attendance register of his men and mark the absentees or raise separate form for the late comers as applicable.
(8) ....
(9) Will record and report all incidents/occurrences or accidents causing any damage to equipment or injuries to personnel.
(10) Will ensure that all the equipment's/vehicles detailed for duty are booked out before proceeding on duty and booked in after completion of duty in the register maintained for this purpose.
(11) ....
(12) ...
(13) Will recommend leave for the personnel of his shift and allow short leave in emergency.
(14) Will recommend/report on the working and performance of men in his shift for remuneration and promotion."
9. The other document mentions the functional responsibilities. The first paragraph is numbered 'A' to 'K'. Out of them, `A"B', 'D' and 'F' might as well be reproduced:--
(A) You will ensure that your subordinate workers/employees remain at work assigned to them by you and that they do not leave their places of duties without obtaining permission from you;
(B) You will exercise full control over the attendance and good time keeping of your subordinate workers/employees.
(C) ...
(D) You will administer discipline among your subordinate workers/employees and will ensure compliance of rules and regulations, you will be fully responsible' for the maintenance of effective discipline, observance of rules and conduct among your subordinate workers/employees.
(E) ...
(F) You will constantly review and evaluate the quality and quantity of the work performed by your subordinate workers/employees.
10. The second paragraph was that "the above functional requirements are basic, primary, fundamental and essential to your position as a whole and to your classification as a member of the management group." He was asked to accept the functional responsibilities and that was duly, done by him as directed. The. Document was duly signed.
11. It was stated by Mr. Khadim Hussain that at the time of the termination of his services, he was getting a pay of Rs,3,000 per month. It was further contended that the designation of the officer or pay was of no consequence at all; the main consideration under the provisions of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968; is to find out as to what was the nature the work being done by the person aggrieved. He sought support from a decision of this Tribunal in the case of Nafeesul Hussain Siddiqui v. Messrs Shaheen Airport Services reported in 1989 PLC 76.
12. In that case the respondents before me were a party to the judgment where it was found that the Ramp Coordinator was a workman and the question as to how much pay he was getting was of no consequence. It is, however, to be seen that in that case, the appellant had detailed out his duties and the Tribunal found that the evidence had gone unrebutted. There was no cross- examination of the appellant either in regard to the nature of his duties as clearly to be found in the aforesaid decision. He used to guide other technicians to operate the equipment by physical operation and it was admitted by the witness of the respondents that the Ramp Coordinator fixed the pin in the Towing Bar and wore the uniform at the time of work at the Aircraft. Besides, he. Used to do overtime and got uniform rest of overtime.
13. The instant case happens to be clearly distinguishable as the nature of work mentioned was of a supervisory nature and if anything at all was to be done manually it was incidental to the job which can happen even with the incumbent of any superior most post as well. As held in the case of Ganga R. Madhani v. Standard Bank Ltd. And others reported in 1985 SCM R 1511 from Lahore High Court, "the true test, therefore, is to look to the direct, immediate and the substantial part of the work for which he is employed and not the sundry duties incidentally performed by him and the true answer to this question will therefore, 'depend upon the proved facts in each case." Reference may also be made to the case of Zubair Ahmad v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and another reported in 1985 SCM R 1511; where it was held that only the workman performing manual or clerical work whether the same is `skilled' or 'unskilled' could be considered to be a workman within the meaning of the word 'workman' as defined under section 2(1) of the Ordinance.
14. If the appellant was not a workman and he was so found by the learned Presiding Officer, a conclusion with which I agree, there was no B question of his being served with the show-cause notice under Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The letter sent was just to apprise the appellant that his association with the respondents organization did no credit, but, on the other hand had brought bad name to it. It was also to show that the services were terminated not in a huff or for any ulterior motives. He was paid a month's salary and was also invited to collect all his dues that may be outstanding which was duly done. So nothing turns on that.
15. I might as well mention that it was submitted by Mr. M. Yaqoob, the learned Representative for the respondents that the grievance petition did not lie because the respondents' concern was a wing of Air Force. He has cited some authorities in support of this contention viz., (1) National Radio and Telecommunication Corporation Employees' and Workers' Union, Haripur v. Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 3 others, reported in 1990 PLC 218; (2) United Builders and Associates v. Presiding Officer, Punjab. Labour Court No, 1, Lahore and others reported in 1976 PLC 855; (3) Canteen Stores Department Employees Welfare Union, Karachi v. Canteen Stores Department and others reported in 1983 SCM R 1101 and (4) Rehmat Gill and others v. Quetta Cantonment Board reported in PLD 1983 SC 133.
16. All these cases show that the Institutions in question, were closely connected with the main activities of Defence Services. Even in the Canteen Stores' case, it was pointed out that the purpose of this organization was to supply standard goods to the Armed Forces. Obviously the defence personnel had to be maintained in good shape. As against this, admittedly, the respondent is an organization to look after the welfare of the children, the widows and the family members of the Armed Forces in need of assistance. It has nothing to do whatsoever with the Defence preparedness or the activities of the Defence Personnel. The fact that it is headed by the Chief of the Air staff or has top brass on its Board of Directors means only this such that its affairs are in safe hands and nothing beyond this. This fact by itself would not be sufficient to take away the redressal of the grievance against the organisation out of the purview of the Standing Orders Ordinance. I am clearly, of the opinion that if any cause of action accrues to a workman of the Organisation then the grievance petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 would certainly lie.
17. There was also a contention that the grievance petition was incompetent as the organization was a 'Charitable Institution and there is no concept of profit involved at all. It was duly registered under the Charitable Endowments Act. The Government had also exempted it from the levy of the income-tax as borne out from the record. As it is not necessary in the circumstances of the case and also as in a case referred to earlier, this submission had not prevailed, it is not necessary to advert to the same.
18. For the reasons given earlier I will uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.