DECISION This appeal of workman Muhammad Nasim Qureshi, arises from the decision of the Fifth Sind Labour Court, Karachi dismissing his grievance petition for reinstatement and back benefits.
2. The facts in brief are that on 1-8-1988 the appellant was temporarily appointed as Technical Assistant on a consolidated salary of Rs.2,500 per month. Hit appointment order as Temporary Technical Assistant was terminated on 27-9-1988. He was then appointed as supervisor on 27-9- 1988 for one year on the total of Rs.2,550. After one year on April 9, 1989 he was designated as Junior Officer in the grade of Rs.1350--3350 with initial pay of Rs.1,350. On 6th June, 1993 the appellant's services were terminated on payment of six month's salary in lieu of notice without assigning any reasons.
3. The appellant contends firstly that he was a workman and not an Officer; Secondly that Steel Mills was industrial concern employing about 350 persons as workers. He could, therefore; file his grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.Q. Before the Labour Court.
4. On the other hand it has been argued by Mr. Zahid Hamid on behalf of the Steel Mills that the appellant was an Officer and not a technical hand because he was drawing a total salary of Rs.5,000 per month. That the Steel Mills employed only seven workmen. The rest were workmen of the three contractors paid and controlled by them. That beside officers there were security guards 13 in number, who were not workmen.
5. The main issue in this case is whether the appellant is a workman under the I.R.O. And Standing Orders or he is an officer.
6. The appellant has stated in his cross-examination that "although his designation was changed to that of supervisor he continued doing the same work as Electrical Assistant. There were to or three Engineers in the Control Room. That he was not working above the electricians or the Chargeman, General Manager and Deputy Manager were also Engineers by profession. That he was not a member of Engineering Association. That the General Manager, Deputy Manager; Assistant Manager, Junior Officers, Electrician and Chargeman worked in the Electrical Department.
The-- appellant has produced accident report, in which the Deputy Manager had himself shown him as a workman".
7. Thus, the appellant was working under the control of the management who were Engineers and his work was of technical nature and he could be called skilled manual worker. The witness of the Steel Mills one Dilawar Amjad, has admitted that "the appellant used to himself remove electrical parts of the machinery and equipment that were in fault and replace them with new parts. That was the main function of the appellant. The nature of the duties of the appellant were those of a worker and were not managerial or supervisory in nature.
8. The next question raised in this case is whether there were 20 or more workers in this establishment. It has been stated in evidence of the appellant that there were about 350 workers including 60 Security Guards. That they were not contractors' employees. That none of the alleged contractors M/s. Allah Wala Engineers, Mehboob Services, Asizia Engineering, and M/s. Technical Alliance were found in the factory. The important question, even if the workers procured by contractors would be of clay to day control and payment. The alleged contractors were not even known to the workers. The respondent mills have not produced any written contracts.
9. Mr. Zahid Hamid has referred to a judgment of Fifth Sind Labour Court, where the Registrar had declined to register the union on the ground that the workers or the Managing Committee were the employees of contractors. But this allegation, in a different context, before the Registrar of Trade Unions, cannot be considered as part of evidence in this case. Even if the labour is provided by a contractor, under Order 20 of the Standing Orders the employer of the Industrial and Commercial Employment is responsible. It is then for the employer to show that these workers were being controlled and supervised by the contractors granted leave by them and paid wages by them.
Such evidence is wanting in this case. So, the workers can not be held to be employees of the contractors and the respondent factory cannot be said to be governed by provisions of the Shops Act. This finding will not, however, affect any other cases already decided by any other Courts or authorities under the labour laws.
10. The appellant's service is said to have been terminated because he was not cooperating with other workers in the establishment, otherwise the management had no personal grudge against the workman. Therefore, for his termination, the worker is also to be blamed and there is contributory lack of responsibility on his part resulting in his termination. This is, therefore, not a fit case for award of full back benefits.
11. Ch. Ashraf Khan agrees that full benefits may not be awarded, though he suggested nominal benefits, considering the nature of the case.
12. Under the circumstances, the judgment of the Labour Court is set aside and the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service within a period of thirty days. He is also awarded nominal back benefits of 10% of his legal dues. 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.