DECISION ' This appeal is directed against the order of the Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi whereby the appellant's petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 was dismissed on the ground that the appellant being a Foreman was not a worker.
2. The appellant was recruited as an Artisan Trainee in the year 1983. His appointment was regularised after 2 years in 1985, as an electrician. In the year 1989 he was promoted as highly skilled worker-I and he continued to work as such. On 28-6-1989 the appellant applied for grant of permission to attend evening classes in Government Jamia Millia Polytechnic for 4 years diploma course. The immediate officer of the appellant orally permitted him to attend the classes but not to absent himself from duty even as a single day. To this he agreed. On 7-1-1992 the appellant passed the 4 years' diploma course and obtained diploma of Associate Engineer Electrical. He then applied for change of his designation as a Sub-Engineer but his request annoyed the management of the Steel Mills, since they had not issued the permission to the appellant in writing to take the evening classes. Show-cause notice dated 20-2-1992 was served on him for violating the instructions of the management. They also gave a written reply to his request for permission to attend the evening classes, by refusing the same. It is strange that this letter of refusal of permission dated 24-7-1989 has been given to the appellant on 13-5-1992 after the show-cause notice. It is also worth noting that on 7th June, 1992 a letter was sent to the appellant that it had been decided to abolish H.S.W.
Cadre and he was therefore re-designated in the equivalent grade as a foreman. Thus, this designation of foreman was neither an elevation to higher grade nor a change in the job duties.
Even during his enquiry he was being designated as electrician H.S.W. I. The appellant suspecting some foul play replied that he did not want his designation to be changed from H.S.W. I to that of foreman and he should be re-designated as Sub-Engineer. That he had also received a show- cause notice for acquiring education without permission but he had been permitted by his Electrical Incharge to attend classes. On the back of his application the Manager Administration wrote the order that he was attending to his duties faithfully all the time and since he had acquired enhanced electric technology he was being recommended strongly for withdrawal of show-cause notice and for re-designation as Sub-Engineer. This order is signed by Mr. S.U. Shaikh, Manager Electrical. In all the correspondence sent to the appellant up to that time he was designated as Electrician H.S.W.-I.
3. Much has been made of his admission in the cross-examination to affidavit where he stated that it was correct that he was working as Foreman at the time when he was terminated but he further explained that he was foreman only in name. The job description of the appellant has been produced as Foreman, but he was to carry out the actual job in controlling major fault rectification and maintenance of electrical equipment and machinery. He was also to carry out routine inspection of electrical equipment and motors, to maintain the Log Book, and he was allowed to recommend leave applications of subordinate to workmen, which he could not grant himself as an Officer. Therefore, even by the job description he continued as highly skilled worker in the Electrical Branch. It is not the designation or pay but the actual nature of duties that have to be considered for determination of the question whether the appellant was a worker or an employer at the time of termination of his service. The above description of his case would therefore show that he was a workman and not an officer because his main duties were of a workman though the supervisory duties may have been performed by him as incidental to his main job.
4. The only other question to be determined in this case is whether the appellant was guilty of misconduct. There is no such misconduct as acquiring knowledge in spare time for higher efficiency in the electrical job. The learned counsel for the Steel Mill has however pointed out the clause regarding disobedience as the misconduct meaning thereby that he had acquired and obtained the diploma of Sub-Engineer against the direction of the Steel Mill. He has already stated that he had attended the classes after applying for permission. He had been permitted orally by his immediate officer and had not at any time been served with a refusal of his request in writing.
This is borne by the order of Manager Administration and the letter of refusal served on him only after the enquiry on 13-5-1992. The appellant has not therefore committed any misconduct within the meaning of Standing Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. On the contrary he deserves credit for having worked at the Steel Mill, to make it possible for him to carry on his further studies, and he has successfully passed the diploma course in 1st Division. He was therefore rightly recommended by Mr. S.U. Shaikh, Manager Administration for 'being promoted as a Sub-Engineer and the enquiry against him to be withdrawn.
5. The grievance application of the appellant under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Was therefore maintainable. The appellant at the time of the domestic enquiry was a workman and he had been wrongly found guilty of misconduct. The order of the Labour Court is therefore set aside and he is directed to be reinstated in service within a period of one month. He had applied for his back benefits, but no question was put to him during the pendency of the case before the Labour Court, regarding his allegation of being jobless. He is therefore allowed the back benefits and other legal dues, and the appeal is allowed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.