This is an appeal against the decision dated 29-6-1976 of Punjab Labour Court, No. 2, Lahore.
2. Mohammad Sadiq, respondent was employed as a Chowkidar in K.D.C. Boards Limited, Jhelum.
In the same premises, there is also a Poultry Farm. On 9-2-1976 at about 4-00 p.m., when the appellant was on duty, near the Poultry Farm, he found some eggs lying in a ditch. He reported the matter to the General Supervisor, who deputed Ali Akbar, another watchman to watch sad see as to who comes to take these eggs. The respondent's duty was at a distance of about 100 yards from that ditch. The Supervisor, also instructed him to help Ali Akbar, in case he needed him. At about 9- 00 p.m. Or, that day somebody came and took away those eggs. Both Ali Akbar and the, appellant pursued the thief, but were unable to catch him. The appellant was, thereafter, charge-sheeted and an enquiry was also held against him, in which he was found guilty of misconduct. On the basis of that finding the respondent was dismissed from service. The respondent challenged the order of his dismissal before the Labour Court, which accepted his petition and ordered his re- instatement.
3. Aggrieved by the above decision, K.D.C. Boards Ltd. Through its Director has preferred this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant raised a preliminary objection that the respondent being a Chowkidar was not a workman under the W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and as such could not claim any right guaranteed or secured to him under the said Ordinance.
5. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Organisation of Karachi Port Trust Workers (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1968) observed "It is pointed out that the Chowkidars and the Havaldars do manual work and were therefore included in the definition of "workman" as contained in section 2(a) of the 1959 Ordinance and that the legislative intention is manifested by the fact that they were expressly excluded viz., section 2(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance enacted in the year 1968. The latest Ordinance on the subject, namely, the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 (XXVIII of 1969) has resolved all doubts on the point. 'Workman' as per definition contained is section 2 (xxviii) of this Ordinance covers all employees of an industrial establishment, whatever the nature of their duties, `' and includes employees who have been discharged in connection with an industrial dispute or whose discharge has led to that dispute".
6. In view of the above it is clear that Chowkidars are workmen under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Now the point which requires the determination is as to whether a Chowkidar is a workman under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968. According to section 2(i) of the Ordinance "workman" means any person employed in any industrial or commercial establishment to do any skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical work for hire or reward. The definition of "workman" is the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, is almost the same as is given under the Standing Orders Ordinance. Since there is a specific provision in the Ordinance of 1968 to exclude Chowkidar A from the definition of a workman, it is clear that but for that exclusion Chowkidar would be a workman under the said Ordinance. As already pointed out above the definition of a workman under the Standing Order Ordinance is almost the same as is given under the Ordinance, of 1969, therefore the definition of workman would include Chowkidars. The preliminary objection is, therefore, repelled.
7. Now coming to the merits of the case I find that it was the duty of Ali Akbar and not that of the respondent to keep a watch over the eggs lying in the ditch. The respondent's duty was at a distance of 100 yards from that place, and he was only required to help Ali Akbar, if called upon to do so. Therefore, the fact that he and Ali Akbar in spite of their best efforts could not apprehend the thief, who had taken away the eggs, cannot make the respondent liable.
8. I, accordingly, find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.