DECISION This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, dismissing the petition for reinstatement under section 25-A of the I.R.O. 1969. The circumstances in which it arose are as follows.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Turner in the Mechanical Workshop of the respondent Sugar Mills and on his own showing had reached the position of a Foreman in January, 1987. On 10-1-1991 he was served with a charge-sheet which reads as under: "It has been reported against you that you remained unauthorisedly absent and subsequently sent telegram on 12-11-1990, for extension of leave up to 20-11-1990 (though you never applied for leave).
You were called upon vide our letter dated 22-11-1990 to resume duty and show cause for your absence. However, you have continuously remained absent up to 21-12-1990, for a period of more than 10 days which tantamounts to severe misconduct on your part.
You are again unauthorisedly absent with effect from 5-1-1991 to date. You are, therefore, charge- sheeted to show cause within three days of receipt of this charge-sheet as to why severe disciplinary action may not be taken against you."
3. He had replied to the same but as the same was not found to be satisfactory an Enquiry letter was issued. The Enquiry was conducted by Muhammad Yousuf, Personnel Officer who had examined Abdul Qadir, Muhammad Alt Ejaz Akhtar and Dr. Abdul Razzaq and found misconduct proved against the petitioner. On the basis of this finding the petitioner came to be dismissed from service on 6-2-1991.
4. He had served a grievance notice and since the reply did not give him any satisfaction, he had filed the petition before the Labour Court.
5. The petition came to be resisted inter alia on the ground that the petitioner was a Foreman and, therefore, he could not seek remedy under the scheme of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The other allegations also came to be denied.
6. The petitioner was his own witness while Muhammad Yousuf, the Enquiry Officer, referred to earlier, and Abdul Rauf, the Time Officer, appeared on behalf of the respondents.
7. The Labour Court found the material issues against the petitioner and dismissed the petition resulting in this appeal. .
8. On the showing of the appellant himself he had been working as a Foreman at the relevant time.
In the petition he had added that he had neither any power to hire and fire any worker nor he had any supervisory or managerial work to perform. In the affidavit submitted by him all that he had said was that he was manufacturing and preparing accessories and spare parts and mending them on the lathe machine.
9. So far as the manufacturing part is concerned that can be left alone as there is nothing on the record that way. But assuming that it was a part of his duties to attend to some repairs occasionally, that only be an incidental work and not the normal nature of his duties. The work of a Foreman is essentially to supervise the work of the people serving under him. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Workers 4f Bata Shoe Co. v. Bata Shoe Company Ltd. 1971 PLC page 1 that mere fact that such a person is doing with his own hand by way of checking and testing work done by others does not make him a workman. In the case of Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Limited v. Abdul Ghaffar and another 1993 SCM R 511 even an Assistant Foreman has been found to be basically having an office which is supervisory in nature. The mere fact that there is no power with the petitioner to hire and fire workers is neither here nor there. The power to induct employees in an establishment in the hands of a very little number at the top.
10. However in view of the law that it is not the designation or the pay but the nature of duties of a petitioner that had to be looked into (See Hotel Intercontinental v. Bashir A. Malik PLD 1986 SC 103, Abdul Razzaq v. Ihsan Sons 1992 SCM R 505 and National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Court, Faisalabad and others 1993 SCM R 672, we will advert to that.
11. There is nothing on the record of this case to look askance on the testimony of the respondent witnesses that the appellant had only supervisory duty to perform. Except for the precious little let fall by the appellant, there is nothing to suggest that he was doing only skilled manual duty. As the appellant is not a workman the appeal is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.
12. However, before I part from the case I might as well add that the appellant had left attending the factory without any application for leave. All that was suggested to Ejaz Akhtar, the Mechanical Engineer, in the domestic enquiry was that he had taken leave from him but the suggestion had been denied. He has himself admitted in the cross-examination that he had no proof of having made any application for leave. It was only on 12-11-1990 that he had sent a telegram. However, he was informed, categorically, that he had to report for duty and that had remained unheeded. The domestic enquiry was held in a very tranquil atmosphere. Good many questions asked from the witnesses all the papers had been duly signed by appellant and there are no insinuation off any sort. What was said by the appellant in the body of the petition that he had been axed because of his union activities, in the circumstances of the case, is nothing beyond a mere embellishment.
13. There is Ito substance in this appeal. I will, therefore, uphold the order and dismiss the appeal.