DECISION This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad, dismissing the petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. The circumstances in which it arose are as follows.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Fitter with the respondent-factory on 2-2-1979. His services came to be terminated on 4-3-1991 on consideration of the reorganization of the company and to cut down the expenses. At that time he was holding the post of Incharge Maintenance. On 8-4-1991 he had sent a grievance notice and because it did not give him any satisfaction had filed the petition before the Labour Court.
3. He did seek the relief of reinstatement, but claimed the following benefits:-
(i) Earned Salary for 3 days Rs 685 (March, 1991)
(ii)Gratuity for the service Rs 66,033.00 period from 22-7-1977 to 4-3-1991=14 years x 20 days = 280 days = 9 months 10 days. @ Rs.7,075 p.m.
(iii)Encashment of un-availed Rs 3,530.00 leave for 15 days.
(iv)Companies Profits Rs 20,000.00 (v)Statutory Bonus Rs 7075.00 Total Rs 97,323.00
4. The petition came to be resisted on the ground that the petitioner was a Staff Officer drawing a pay of Rs.7,075 per month, entrusted with supervisory duties and,, therefore, the petition did not lie.
While denying other allegations, the following dues were admitted: (1)Salary for 4 days of March, Rs.912.90 1991.
(2)Encashment of 16 days Rs.3,773.33 un-availed holidays (3)One month's notice pay Rs.7,07.5.00 (4)Gratuity from 1-7-79 to Rs.2,780.00 31-12-81 Rs. 1,390 p.m. for 60 days.
Total Rs. 14,541.23 However it was alleged that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.40,000 for the purchase of a house, out of which Rs.25,087 were still outstanding against him and if a sum of Rs.14,541.23 is adjusted against Rs.25,087 some liability will still remain. It was further alleged that the Gratuity from 1977 to 1979 had already been paid to him on 29-8-1984.
5. The petitioner apart from himself examined Nazeer Muhammad and Azam Ghani while Syed Abdul Mujib, the Manager and Nizamuddin, Labour Officer, appeared on behalf of the respondents.
6. The Labour Court found that the petitioner was not a workman, also repelled the other claims as set forward by the petitioner and in the result dismissed the petition culminating in this appeal.
7. The appellant in his affidavit in evidence stated that he used to perform the duties of skilled manual nature at the factory, and also at the sister concerns of the respondents establishment, and nobody was working under him. He, however, admitted that Abdul Rehman Abdul Wahab and eight other persons whose names were detailed out were working in the Maintenance Section as to be found in Exh. R-3. He was also confronted with an application of his requesting for payment of gratuity which was in his own handwriting. He had mentioned himself there as `Maintenance Incharge'. There is also the Agreement of Service dated 11-1-1982 which also mentions that he was Incharge of Maintenance Section. It duly bears his signature.
8. Some applications for leave have also been placed on the record carrying his recommendation as supervisor. These are Exhs. R-10 to R-12. He denied in the cross-examination that he used to sign Requisition Slips Wt Exhs. R.13 to. R.19 are all duly signed by him as the Head of the Department. The paper on which the demands were made is mentioned as "Store Requisition".
9. On his own showing he was the senior most of all the other person in the Maintenance Department. He has stated in the cross-examination that "we all persons used to be on round and whenever any complaint was made any of us used to see and check that machine." But I think the word "we" here is a euphemism for "I".
10. Abdul Mujib has stated that the appellant as the Head and Incharge of the Maintenance Department was responsible for its proper working and administration "and no leave or benefit or a payment is made in the Department without his approval." He had also mentioned that all the spares and materials required for use in the Maintenance Department used to be requisitioned by him, and he used to have the machines repaired through his helpers. This is what has been deposed to by Nizamuddin also and nothing worth while could be elicited from him in the cross- examination. The fact that the Requisition Slips also used to be countersigned by the Factory Manager is indicative of nothing more than a counter-check. It is true that he did not have the hire and fire power but that hardly makes a difference.
11. I agree that mere designation or pay, which in this case was Rs.7,075 per month, will not determine his status as the Head of the Department. But it is preposterous to suggest that he was doing the same work as the other fitters and helpers attached to him were performing. Even if he did attend to some work here and there that would be by way of checking and testing. Even occasional repairing will not detract from his supervisory position. (See. Workers of Bata Shoe Company v. Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. 1971 PLC 1, Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Limited v. Abdul Ghaffar and others 1993 SCM R 511 wherein it was found that even an Assistant Foreman could be required to show the workmen under him as to how a particular job wars to be done by them. But such activities would not be normal nature of his duties which was basically supervisory in nature.
As to be found in the case of Hotel Intercontinental v. Bashir A. Malik PLD 1986 SC 103, the main thing is to see whether the duties performed were incidental of fundamentally basic 'in nature. If these were only incidental the petitioner would not be a workman.
12. In the circumstances of the case I have no hesitation in holding, as was found by the Labour Court, that the appellant was performing duties which were supervisory in nature. That goes to the very root of the case. The Presiding Officer has not bestowed proper care while examining the claims of the appellant as said earlier there was no prayer for reinstatement. But it is not necessary to advert to the same.
13. I will, therefore, 'uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.