DECISION ' This appeal arised from the order of Firth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed and he was directed to be reinstated in service with all the back benefits.
2. The respondent was employed by the appellants, Pakistan Herald Ltd., as a Senior Clerk on 2-5- 1980. On 25-6-1980 the respondent was given additional duties as Building Superintendent and these additional duties were in connection with supervision of subordinate staff namely 13 Chowkidars, 5 Sweepers, One Plumber, 6 Electricians, One Carpenter and One Gardener. His main duties as Senior Clerk for keeping the record of these employees, however, continued. Later on the respondent tried to justify his designation as Superintendent of Building and wrote a letter to the Management for an Office Room and Telephone . This letter infuriated the Management and the services of the respondent were terminated by order dated 13-2-1992. The reason for termination was mentioned to be financial constraint requiring retrenchment, but he was the only employee who was retrenched for the purpose of reorganization and he was paid his dues. The respondent appealed to the Management that he had 18 years service and he had attained the age of 45 having grown-up college-going children and, therefore, requested for rainstatement in service.
This was refused after which the respondent served the management with the Grievance Notice but no reply was sent to this notice. He, accordingly, filed Grievance Petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 in the Labour Court.
3. The learned Labour Court held the termination to be without any justification and the Court, therefore, ordered his reinstatement in service with all the back benefits within one month of the order. The order was apparently complied with' but the respondent's services were again terminated for which another petition is still pending before the Labour Court.
4. It has been argued by Mr. Muhammad Humayun, Advocate for the appellants, Pakistan Herald Ltd., that the appellant had been promoted from the post of Senior Clerk as Superintendent Building, and at the time of termination he was drawing the emolument of Rs,5,000 p.m. His nature of duties being supervisory he could not be regarded to be a worker under the definition given in the I.R.O.
5. It has, on the other hand, been argued by Mr. Khalil-ur-Rehman, Representative for the Respondent, that the respondent's letter of appointment dated 25-6-1980 show his duties to be as Senior Clerk in the Section. He was required to store unserviceable junk pertaining to Electricity, Plumbing, Air-conditioners and furniture. That on promotion as Superintendent Building he was paid an extra Rs,300 p.m. As per letter dated 18-8-1987. Rs, 300 were regarded as extra duties allowance and he was to work under the Manager(Production). These documents have been produced in evidence and they establish the fact that the main duties of the respondent were of Senior Clerk taking in his charge, all the junk that might become useful to the Electricians and Plumber etc. For supervision of their work the respondent was paid only Rs,300 as extra allowance that was not for the principal duties as Senior Clerk. He could neither appoint nor recruit any of the workers or subordinates and merely recommending of their Leave Application did not show that he was doing any Managerial work. Even his request for an Office and a Telephone was turned down and he was considered to be one of the workers.
6. It has next been argued by Mr. Muhammad Humayun that the grievance petition is time-barred as it was filed after the prescribed period from the date of grievance notice. The appeal of the respondent for reinstatement has been regarded as the grievance notice though it was humble appeal and not a notice complaining of termination.
7. The learned counsel has cited the case of Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Work v. Abdul Ghaffar 1993 SCM R 511 that the duties of the respondent being of supervisory nature he would be excluded from the definition of workman but as already discussed above these duties were merely nominal and his main work was to be Incharge of the junk store in his capacity as a Senior Clerk. It has not been shown what work was assigned to him as Superintendent (Building). The majority of his duties being of manual and clerical nature his designation as Superintendent of the Building could not make him an 'officer'.
8. It is true that for the purpose of Re-organisation a worker's service can be terminated under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 but under subsection (3) reasons for termination are to be given. The reason given in this case are financial constraint. Pakistan Herald Limited is a huge Organization which publishes several newspapers and Magazines and employ considerable number of workers. It has not been shown that any other employee was also retrenched on account of financial difficulties nor has it been proved from the `Audit Report' of Chartered Accountants that they were running at a loss. The reason given is not, therefore, convincing. The second time termination clearly points out that the management were prejudiced against the respondent and did not want to keep him in employment any longer.
9. The Order of the Labour Court is, accordingly, maintained and the appeal of the Management is dismissed. 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.