The learned Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad, by its decision dated 16-10-1993, dismissed Muhammad Fazil's grievance petition, filed under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
He has come up in appeal fn this Tribunal.
2. Muhammad Fazil was serving as F & B Controller in the Faisalabad Serena Hotel and was dismissed from service on 8-5-1991. He assailed the validity and operativeness of the said order by bringing the above said grievance petition on 1-6-1991, claiming to be a workman. In the opinion of the learned lower Court, however, he cannot be treated as a workman, since his job was one of supervisory character.
3. Muhammad Fazil, petitioner, made statement as PW-1, and Mr. Faryad-ur-Rehman, Personnel and Training Manager of the Hotel, was examined by the Hotel Management as RW-1. On both sides, several documents were also tendered in evidence. It has been deposed by RW-1 that Muhammad Fazil, petitioner, was the Cost Controller, and he had an Assistant and a Clerk working under him, he kept a watch on the articles received and stored in the hotel, he also used to evaluate the performance of the probationers, following fresh recruitments, and was authorized to grant leave to his subordinates. Document Exh. R-45 is the letter of appointment or the contract letter; it is at pages 343 to 345 of the file of the lower Court. His gross salary per month was Rs.4,000 the appointment having been made on 15-8-1987, communicated to him on 23-8-1987, and it was to take effect from 1-9-1987. There is another document, Exh. R-45-A; which has been presented for placing before the Court the Job Description of the appellant. The job appears to be mostly of supervisory or managerial nature as he was required to check and verify the items of eatables, including food, beverages, fruits, vegetables, poultry, meat, food, groceries, etc. It was also his job to visit F&B outlets, as room service, bars, restaurant, coffee shop, main kitchen, permit room, etc. He was responsible for furnishing information/report about stores, cost control office, etc., to the Financial Controller, and also to give suggestions to the Executive Chief. One of his duties was to prepare the general vouchers at the end of every month; other duties being verification or checking of invoices and bills, daily food cost report, food and beverage store room re-conciliation, etc. Main emphasis has been laid on the duties that find mention at Serial No.3, the same being, the supervision of the work of the staff, as Assistant Controller (F&B), F&B Clerk, Receiving Clerk, Store Keeper and Store Porter.
4. It is on the basis of this 'Job Description' that the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that, by no stretch of imagination, could Muhammad Fazil be characterised as a workman, as by all standards he was working in a supervisory capacity and no annual labour was involved. It is, however, to be borne in mind that the document Exh. R. 45-A has been disowned by Muhammad Fazil, whose signatures it does not carry. He states that it is a fabrication and has been inserted in the record, without his being aware of its existence. Muhammad Fazil was not confronted with it, when he made a statement as PW-1 in the Labour Court. He categorically said, towards the end of his statement, that the 'job description' had not been given to him. He, however, has generally conceded, in cross-examination, that he had signed their 'appraisal forms', Exhs. R- 30 to 44', but he was not holding any independent charge, and the assessment about performance of the subordinate staff was subject to the one by the Controller Finance. He was not authored to grant leave to the members of the staff, although he could recommend their applications for leave, as would be indicated by Exhs. R-1 to 29. Actually, it used to be an informatory sort of duty, so that he could remain aware as to who amongst the staff members would be on leave on a particular day. He maintains that the probationers and temporary or ad-hoc employees used not to be subordinate to him, as prospects of their continuance in service or future career did not depend on his evaluation.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited a number of celebrated authorities, in which it has been held that the designation or the salary of incumbent of a post would not be the determining factor, in deducing if a particular person is a workman or not. There are certain assignments, which are ostensibly of supervisory character, but the supervision of the kind in question in this case essentially involves manual work as well. Holder of such an assignment would still be a workman.
Question, which would call for examination, would be whether manual or clerical work is incidental to the main work, or is a substantive part of it. If the employee, although labelled as a supervisor, does some manual or clerical work, as ancillary or incidental to such appointment, the job will not bring him within the ambit of description of a worker. Definition of worker given in section 2(i), Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is simpler as compared to the one given in sub-clause (xxviii) of section 2, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and it does not essentially aim at excluding a person, who is employed in a supervisory or managerial or administrative capacity and drawing wages exceeding Rs. 800 per mensem, from the parameters of class of workmen. Mere fact that some subordinates are working under an employee would not affect his status as a workman, if he is also doing work with his hands. The authorities are 1992 SCM R 505, 1983 SCM R 1313, 1979 SCM R 304, 1987 PLC 697 (Karachi High Court) and 1992 PLC 387 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind).
6. On careful consideration of the evidence available on record, oral as well as documentary, together with the aforementioned reported cases, I have come to the conclusion that Muhammad Fazil, despite his job apparently adorned with some sort of 'ostentation' or 'exaltation' and carrying emoluments running into four figures, and in spite of the fact that he was having some staff also under him, had actually been employed as and was functioning as workman substantially. I would, therefore, set aside the finding recorded in that regard by the learned Labour Court and would remand the case for its decision on merits. The appeal succeeds; and is allowed, with costs. The record shall be remitted to the Labour Court and further proceedings there will take place on.28-7- 1996. As the appellant was ousted from service more than five years ago, it would be expedient, just and proper to dispose of the grievance petition finally within the shortest possible the, say, by 23- 12-1996, at the latest.