DECISION ' This appeal arises from order of the Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi dismissing the grievance application of the appellant on the ground that the I.R.O. And the Standing Orders were not applicable to his case since he was not a worker.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellant was appointed on 30-9-1984 in the Farm Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd. As Assistant Production Officer. On 2-7-1992 his services were dispensed with on the ground that they were no more required.
3. The only point for consideration in this case is whether the appellant was a worker within the meaning of the Standing Orders on the I.R.O. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was getting a consolidated salary of Rs,5,050 per month. That he was not getting the bonus etc. Allowed to the workers but he was allowed salary + House Rent and Conveyance Allowance. According to the appellant his usual work was numbering all the cartons in which the pesticides were packed for distribution to dealers in Pakistan. But Mr. Rehan Aqeel for the management has pointed out that the appellant was an officer in Production Section and he was supervising the work of 74 workers.
He was recommending their leave etc. He was also assigning the duties to supervise all these workers. That the duty assignment sheet is signed by him. He has further pointed out that the appellant had signed the job description, and also attended the management skill workshop for training. That even if he numbered the cartons of pesticides, this work was merely incidental to his main duties as Assistant Manager. That the supervisors were responsible to the Assistant Production Officer and the appellant was responsible to the manager. That he could not therefore be designated as a worker, merely because he also attended to the numbering of the cartons which was not the main work assignd to him. That the appellant also appraised the work assigned to the workers as an officer, as such he could not come within the definition of worker and his grievance application was not maintainable.
4. I can therefore see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Labour Court that the appellant was not a worker and the questions of examining the reasons for his dismissal were outside the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The judgment of the lower Court is accordingly maintained and the appeal is dismissed.