DECISION This is an appeal against the Award of thelearued Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. IV, dated the 17th of May 1974 in an application under section 25-A read with section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the 'Ordinance'). The facts briefly put are these. The appellant was employed as an Accountant at a salary of Rs. 670 per month He tendered his resignation on the 5th of March 1972 which was accepted on the 5th of May 1972. The appellant claimed salary for the month of May at Rs. 670, Earned Leave pay for 2 months and 25 days @ one month per year according to service rules, amounting to Rs. 1,900, Gratuity equivalent to six months pay on the basis of l2 years continuous service totalling to Rs. 4,020 and Bonus being one month's pay. Thus he claims Rs. 7,260,
2. The learned Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was not a workman and, therefore, dismissed his application. The learned Court, however, granted five days* salary for the month of May i.e. from lst of May to the 5th of May 1972 at the rate ofRs. 670 per month. He also granted 2\ months' Earned Leave amounting to Rs. 1,900. He refused to grant Bonus and Gratuity. The learned Court also granted Rs. 500 as cost to the appellant to be paid within two weeks.
3. On the face of it the appellant is not a "workman". It is true that he can be said to be a "workman" as the word 'hire* used in Standing Orders Ordinance in the definition of workman is wide enough to include a workman. The application, however, was under section 25-A of the Ordinance and, therefore, the learned Court should have applied the definition of workman as given in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. At the time when the appellant resigned from service the definition of workman was wide enough to exclude the case of the appellant. Section 2 {xxviii) (b) reads as under :-- {FCDF70B7-1D97-4BFE-B33C-7B65D2969176} "Worker" and "Workman" means.............................................................................. (b) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding rupees six hundred per mensem or performs, either because of the nature of duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, function mainly of managerial nature." The amount of Rs. 600 was later on increased to Rs. 800 per mensem but at the time when the appellant resigned it was Rs. 600. Admittedly, at that time, he was drawing Rs.
670 as salary. The only question that requires consideration is as to whether he was employed in the supervisory capacity or not. The appellant examined himself and admitted in cross- examination that there was no other Accountant except himself. He was the only Accountant and there was an Assistant Secretary for Accounts namely, A. Fazeel. He admitted that there was one Cashier and one Clerk working with him in Accounts Department. On the other hand, Mr. Afzal Chaudhry, Secretary, Karachi Stock Exchange, K arachi stated that the appellant was working as Accountant and there were Cashier and Clerks under him and as such he was not a "workman".
The learned Advocate for the appellant, however, contended that Mr. Chaudhry has joined Karachi Stock Exchange Ltd., Karachi, on the 23rd of May 1972 after the appellant had reigned and, therefore, he cannot be said to have any personal knowledge. There is not much force in this contention. The facts remain that the appellant himself admitted that he was the only Accountant and that the Cashier and a Clerk was working with him. I would hold that the appellant is not a 'workman*. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. As there is not cross-appeal I would maintain the order as to the cost and that has been awarded.