DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,V at Karachi dated 8th May, 1991 whereby the grievance application of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that he was not a workman.
2. I have heard Mr. M.M. Jeelani for the appellant and I have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The appellant was admittedly working as Chief Engineer at the time when his services were terminated vide order dated 30th March, 1987. His salary was admittedly Rs,4,500 per month.
However, the appellant claims to be a workman as defined under the labour laws. It is settled law that it is not a designation or the salary which determines the status of employee as to A whether he is a workman or not, but it is nature of his work. However the appellant belongs to officer class and therefore the burden was upon him to prove that he was a workman and that he was doing manual or clerical work, skilled or unskilled.
4. In para. 15 of grievance petition the appellant has given the nature of his duties which may be reproduced as under:- "Applicant at the relevant time was to submit contractors/suppliers' bills, already processed.
Scrutinised and passed for payments by the Consultants at the site of works I e Lahore and Islamabad, to the respondent's higher authorities for orders of the Managing Director."
5. In para. 16 of the grievance petition he has stated that he was not doing any Managerial, Supervisory or Executive nature of duties and that he had no power of hire and fire etc.
6. The respondents in their Reply Statement have asserted that appellant was doing supervisory work. They have produced Annexure 'A' which is extract from Manual No, 1 which shows the duties of the appellant as Chief Manager Engineering which may be reproduced as under: "Chief Manager, Engineering. He is a qualified (E.C.P.-P.E.) engineer (Grade-I Officer) and works under the control of General Manager, Engineering and is responsible for the following:-
(1) Supervision/control of the officers (Managers) and staff working under him.
(2) Scrutiny and passing of bills for payment and be responsible generally, for their admissibility and correctness.
(3) Process cases with respect to works, administratively and technically, for approval of the competent authority.
(4) Prepare and scrutinise estimates prepared by consultants or by the Corporation.
(5) Scrutinise Notice Inviting Tenders, Tender, prepare and scrutinise revised estimates, supplies and stores.
(6) Attend to draft/audit paras. Concerning Engineering Section.
(7) Fix rent in respect of residences and buildings and get finalised allotment of rentable spaces in House Building Fmance Corporation houses/buildings.
(8) Write periodic reports and publicity material, prepare schemes for development in future, and review progress of on going works; and
(9) Any other work if and when assigned by Executive Director, Engineering, or his superiors. It would be seen that none- of these duties requires any manual or clerical work.
7. Mr. Jeelani has referred to the admission of respondent's witness Noor Ahmed which may also be reproduced as under:- "It is correct that at the time of termination the applicant remained posted at Project Engineering Division, Karachi. It means that since the month of October, 1986 till 31-3-1987 he remained posted at Project Engineering Division, Karachi. The Head of the Project Engineering Division is Executive Director (Project Engineering). It is correct that the Exeuctive Director is the overall head of the aforesaid Division and all the employees of that Division work under his direct control. The final authority for approval and sanction of the bills of the contractors is the Managing Director. It is correct that the function of the applicant was to scrutinise and assure correctness of the bills submitted by the contractors. It is correct that after scrutiny the applicant used to submit the bills to the higher authorities for further orders. It is correct that the applicant used to recommend the leave applications of the employees and thereafter used to submit the same to the higher authorities for final sanction. During his tenure of service there was no occasion when the applicant had to invite tenders. There were projects of the respondent at Islamabad and Lahore. The estimates of those projects had already been prepared before the applicant joined the service of the respondent. It is correct that the supplies of material etc. Of those projects were being carried out at the. Site, of said projects. It is correct that Engineers used to be present at the site of those projects to check the supplies and the stores."
8. It may be pointed out that this witness in affidavit-in-evidence has stated that the duty of the appellant was supervision and control of officers and Managers and staff working under him.
9. Mr. Jeelani has also relied upon the admission of R.W. Mohammad All Gohar Zaidi, He states that supervision of the Project was undertaken by M/s. PEPAC who were consultants for Faisal Project, Lahore and no supervision was made by the applicant himself. He has admitted that the power of hire and fire rested with the Managing Director of the Corporation.
10. As pointed above the burden of proof that he was a workman was upon the appellant. On his own admission in the grievance petition at the relevant time he was to submit Contractors/Suppliers bills, already processed, 4crutinised and passed for payments by the Consultants at the site of works. His function was only to check whether the bills were correct or incorrect and be present at the Site Project. The clerical work if any would only be incidental or ancillary to his main duty. The duties that he admittedly was performing did not entail any manual or clerical work, skilled or unskilled so as to bring the appellant in the category of workman. The learned Labour Court has discussed the issue thoroughly and I see no reason to disagree with the finding of the learned Labour Court. The appeal is therefore, dismissed in limine.