DECISION This appeal arises from the decision of the Fifth Sind Labour Court, Karachi dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the appellant was not a workman.
2. The appellant was employed in the respondent Allied Bank of Pakistan as a Grade-III Officer on 15-9-1976. On 26-1-1986 the appellant was posted as Manager Degree Branch of the Bank. His main task was to recover 13,40,382 loans advanced by the Bank in addition to his other duties as Manager. On January 24, 1989, the appellant was charge-sheeted and the charges amongst others were, that the loan of 13,00,000 and odd was still standing un-recovered; that he was careless and negligent in performance of his duties. A borrower refunded Rs.4,000 but the amount was not entered in the register but was misappropriated. Ten applications for loans each demanding Rs.6,000 were allowed by him but the actual payment made was Rs.40,000 and the balance of Rs.20,000 was misappropriated. A guarantor of these loans paid the amount of Rs.
51,000 and 38,000 towards the loans but these amounts to were embezzled and not credited in the Loan Account. On account of these irregularities misappropriations and embezzlements covering lacs of rupees the appellant was charge-sheeted, and after due enquiry, he was dismissed from service as Manager of Degree Branch, on July 17, 1991. The appellant then filed a departmental appeal on September 1, 1991 but he did not get a favourable reply. Ultimately the appellant filed grievance petition before Fifth Sind Labour Court,' Karachi. The learned Labour Court found that the petitioner/appellant as a Manager of Degree Branch was not a workman but he was an officer of the Bank. Secondly that the Degree Branch Unit of Allied Bank Limited did not employ 20 or more workers as a commercial establishment. The I.R.O. And Standing Orders Ordinance did not apply to that small Branch of the Bank as a Unit. The Court accordingly found that the grievance petition was not maintainable before a Labour Court.
3. In a well-reasoned and detailed judgment covering 15 pages the l grounds for these findings have been mentioned in detail. It has been pointed out that the appellant was a Manager and all the employees in the Degree Branch were working under his control and supervision. He was not a manual or clerical workman but he was the officer, holding Power of Attorney from the Bank, produced on record as Exh. A/3. Mr. Keshew An--odhar Lal has been mentioned as having been appointed true and lawful Attorney of the Bank. He was admittedly drawing a pay of Rs.5,000 per month as officer, and there was no other superior officer posted at Degree over him.
4. The learned Labour Court has lightly referred to the decision of Supreme Court reported in PLD 1986 Supreme Court 103 that the nature of the work done is to be examined to test whether a person is doing manual or clerical work or that such. Work is only incidental to the main duties which are managerial. That as Manager all the employees were under control and supervision of the appellant and he was not, therefore, a workman as defined in the I.R.O.
5. That the Unit of the Bank at Degree Branch employed less than 20 persons and the Standing Orders and 1.R.O. Were not applicable to that Unit as part of the Main Office at Karachi and Head Office at Lahore. On this point also the decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1992 PLC 562 and 1991 PLC 885 have been referred to. It is an established position that in cases of Banks and such other Corporations, the Head Office and the various Units of establishment have to be examined separately to see if they employ 20 or more workers. All the Branches of such Companies and the head office B cannot be amalgamated as one Unit to calculate the number of workers employed. On that point also the Degree Branch was not a commercial establishment employing 20 or more workers, to confer jurisdiction on a Labour Court to decide such cases.
6. These labour laws are for the benefit of manual workers and clerical workers who have neither the power nor capacity to contest cases in regular Court of law. These Labour Laws are not meant for the higher executives of commercial establishments just because they are advantageous for the C workers. The officer bring themselves to the level of workers to be able to avail of the benefits meant for the poor people. In this case on the one hand the appellant has preferred a departmental appeal to the authorities and on the other hand he was 'served a grievance notice under the Labour laws. He cannot be an officer acid the labourer at the same the.
7. I accordingly maintain the judgment and the findings of the Labour Court. The judgment is well- reasoned and adequate law has been quoted to support the findings. I find no merit in the appeal and no ground for interference with this judgment.
8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.