Grievance petition filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by Muhammad ldrees, against M/s. Avari Hotel and its General Manager, was on 21-8-1991 dismissed by Haji Muhammad Akram Baitu, Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore. He has come up in appeal to this Court.
2. Muhammad ldrees had been employed by the Avari Hotel, The Mall, Lahore as Chef Saucier in July, 1985, and his services were terminated vide order dated 10-9-1987. This was done, according to the appellant, without assigning any reason and without serving him with a show-cause notice or making him to face any enquiry. He brought the order under challenge by way of a grievance petition on 9-12-1987. The learned lower Court has held the petition not to be maintainable, as the petitioner before it could not claim to be a worker. Sana Ullah examined as a witness by the hotel management deposed in the lower Court that he had been working as an Assistant of Muhammad ldrees, who had as many as 20/25 employees under him. Duties of the petitioner were of supervisory nature and as such the forum of the Labour Court was not available to him for redress of his grievance, if any..
3. The learned lower Court has, m particular, referred to the oral testimony of Sana Ullah, as also the documents Exhs.R.I to R.6, the letter of appointment (Exh.R.2) indicating that his pay per- month was Rs.5,500. In Exh.R.5 are enumerated different jobs, as many as 70, against which persons with varying qualification and experience have been employed. Exh. R. 6 denotes the nature of duties of a supervisor. Exh. R. 3/1 are 'Officers Service Rules' and Exh. R. 4 is the application which Muhammad ldrees had made to the Board of Trustees for membership of the Hilton International, Lahore, Officers Provident Fund.
4. Earlier, my learned predecessor had rendered a judgment on 24-11-1991, remanding the case to the Labour Court for re decision, with a direction that the respondents (the hotel management) be afforded an opportunity to lead documentary evidence as regards the nature of the supervisory work, if any, being done by the appellant. It was observed that the mere fact that the appellant had agreed to be bound by the Officers Provident Fund Rules was not sufficient to oust him from the pale of ' worker'. Likewise, providing 'Officers Service Rules' to the appellant did not prove that Muhammad Idrees was an officer and not a worker. Exh. R.5 enlists 70 designations pertaining to the Hilton International, Lahore, which was housed in the same building, but, Idrees, it may be noted, was an employee of Avari Hotel and not the Hilton International. Exh. R. 5, at Serial No. 25 of which the post, of Chef Saucier finds mention, was as such excluded from consideration. R.W. 1 had testified to the fact that a number of persons were working under the appellant, but he had not disclosed the name of any one of them, and thus this was considered to be a fake statement, leading nowhere.
4. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported as PLD 1986 SC 633, cited by the appellant, was not relied upon by this Tribunal, the reason being that it pertained to a case relating to Hotel Intercontinental, Lahore, and not the Avari Hotel. I, however, find no reason why this ruling should be discarded. It has enunciated the broad principles, which have to be borne in mind by a Court, while deciding the question whether or not an employee is a worker; he may be employed anywhere.
5. The dictionary meaning of the word 'Chef' is 'Head Cook' or 'Master Cook'. It will, however, not be disputed that a cook is a cook, even if he is a Head Cook or Incharge of Cooks. R.W. 1, as witness of the respondents, has himself stated that Muhammad Idrees used to personally prepare certain 'dishes' with his own hands, and he would also furnish an example of correct cooking, by making a personal demonstration, if some one would spoil a dish. Muhammad Idrees had no powers of making and appointment, nor could he grant leave to any one, although he could l recommend an application for leave. Sana Ullah says that Muhammad Idrees petitioner had been preparing breakfast, as also other dishes at times especially during rush hours.
6. In 1993 PLC 868 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind), it has been' S held that a Head Waiter having no power to hire and fire does not cease to be a worker, even if he supervises work of others and draws pay exceeding Rs.800 per month. The definition of 'worker', as occurring in section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, embraces even a person, who does skilled duty, and is not restricted to those, who are engaged in doing only unskilled or manual or clerical work.
6-A. Designation or salary of incumbent of a post would not be the determining factor and what really would decide the status of a person will be the nature of the duty being performed. An assignment ostensibly of supervisory character may not necessarily take the person out of the purview of members of the working class, if actually he is doing some manual work. If manual work is not ancillary or incidental to main work, but is a substantive part of the assignment, the holder of such assignment would fall under the definition of 'worker'. Similarly, status of a person as a workman would remain the same, even if some subordinates are working under him but he continues to operate manually. Authorities that may be cited in this regard 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).
7. I am of the considered view that despite the fact that Muhammad Idrees is labelled as supervisor and is drawing salary running into four figures, he continues to be a workman. The finding recorded by the learned lower Court, while dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant, is set aside, and the appeal is allowed, although with no order as to costs. The case shall go back to the Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, for its decision afresh on merits. It shall be put up for further proceedings in the Court below on 4-8-1996.