DECISION This appeal has been filed against the of order the Labour Court dismiss--ing the application filed by the appellant under section 25-A, I. R O. on the ground that the appellant was not a workman within the meaning of Industrial Relations Ordinance.
2. In August, 1956 the appellant joined as a Reporter in Pakistan Press Association which was later named as Pakistan Press International which is now the respondent in the present case. In due course of time the appellant rose to the rank of Chief News Editor. On 5th June, 1975 he received a letter from the respondent that he was not attending to his duties since 15th May, 1975 and was called upon to show cause why action should not be taken against him. It seems that the appellant had applied for leave from 19th May, 1975 to 7th June, 1975. He received a charge-sheet on 12th August, 1975 on the allegation that he had remained absent without leave w.e.f. 9th June, 1975, although, it is the case of the appellant that be resumed his duty from 9th June, 1975 and had applied for 3 months leave. The appellant was finally dismissed from service on 1st January, 1976.
3. Aggrieved by this, the appellant served a grievance notice and approached the Labour Court denying the allegation and alleging that he was dismissed from service without any proper inquiry.
The application was resisted and various pleas were taken.
4. One of the pleas which was taken on behalf of the respondent was that the appellant was not a workman and, therefore, his application was not mintainable. At the time when the appellant was dismissed he was drawing Rs. 1800 a monthly wages including allowances. The monthly salary which be was drawing was Rs. 1,000 and the remaining Rs. 800 were the allowances including Ks.
300 as Car Allowance and Rs. 50 as for mintenance of residential telephone. Admittedly, he was Chief News Editor. On the basis of the record, the Labour Court held that the appellant was not a workman and therefore, his application was not maintainable. Consequently, the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.
5. The definitions of "employer" and "workman" have been provided by I. R. O. With regard to the definition of employer I would like to refer to section 2(viii)(b) which reads as under:- "Any person responsible for the Management, supervision and control of the establishment."
6. It is an admitted position teat the appellant was a Chief News Editor and 3 or 4 Tele printer Operators, 3 or 4 Reporters and Desk sub-- Editors were working under him. It has also been established that he had the powers to recommend their promotion, appointment and removal from service. The appellant also admitted in the cross-examination that the functions which he performed as special correspondences were digging out quality news, to interview political an international political leaders and discuss with them the letters of importance. Considering the status and the administrative powers of the appellant I entirely agree with the Labour Court that the appellant was an employer and his case falls within the purview of the aforestated clause of the definition.
7. Even presuming that he could be brought within the definition of workman as defined by clause (xxviii) of section 2 but there can be no manner of dispute that the appellant was a Supervisor and he was drawing Rs. 1,0(H1 per month as salary and, therefore his case would fall under the exception as provided by sub-clause (b) of the definition. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant was drawing Car Allowance as well as was provided with telephone at his residence.
These additional facilities support my view that the appellant could not be treated to be a workman.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the case of Mohammad Yousuf v. Manager, Punjatan Textile Mills, Mardan (1) 1974 L L C 16, decided by Peshawar Appellate Tribunal, wherein it was observed that a supervisor merely performing supervisory duties and not enjoying any power to engage or remove or take disciplinary action against the other workers by his own authority could not be taken out of the definition of a workman. This case does not help the appellant, as there is nothing to show bow mush salary he was drawing. It may be that his salary did not exceed Rs. 800 per month and, therefore, he was treated to be a workman.
9. In result I maintain the order passed by the Labour Court ands dismiss the appeal.