1. By way of the instant appeal has been assailed the soundness/legality of the judgment dated 27- 3-1993, rendered by Sardar Ghulam Abbas Khan, Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan, accepting the grievance petition, filed under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by Sardar Ali, whose reinstatement in service along with back benefits was ordered.
2. Sardar Ali was employed by PASSCO as Sub-Accountant on 15-6-1979 and was promoted as Purchase Officer on 1-7-1980, but his services were terminated on 8-6-1985, for rescission of which order he approached the Labour Court on 1-9-1985. At the relevant time, Sardar Ali was In charge of Abdul Hakim Reservoir (District Khanewal). During checking of the wheat stock it was found to be short by 600 bags, and for this lesser shortage, Sardar Ali was held to be responsible. He, however, maintains that the loss had actually been caused by Liaqat Ali, Chowkidar, in connivance with Abdul Khaliq, Senior Project Manager, Khanewal, who had appointed Liaqat Ali as Chowkidar, on daily wages, against departmental instructions and in violation of the relevant rules and regulations. Sardar All takes up the plea that as Abdul Khaliq was at fault, he had counseled him to keep quiet and had given an amount of Rs,20,000 for Raking up the deficiency. The case of wheat being Rs,29,000, a title deed (Exh.P.1), as regards a plot of land at Lahore, measuring 8 marlas, was passed on to him, through the Project Director, so that he could sell it and recover the remaining sum of Rs,9,000. Apparently, this plea does not at all appeal to reason. If Abdul Khaliq and his coterie were that dishonest, they were not supposed to have parted with the entire amount in favor of Sardar Ali, and were instead expected to have shifted the entire blame unto him, particularly when he (Sardar Ali) happened to be the in charge of the reservoir, at the relevant time. I would, however, refrain from further commenting on the creditability of the version of the accused official as also soundness of the allegations leveled against him, lest my remarks may tend to prejudice the case of either the accused or the corporation, as I intend not to record any observations conclusively in regard to the discussion of the case undertaken by the learned labor Court.
3. On Sardar Ali's request, the Enquiry Committee, initially constituted, had been disbanded and replaced by another Enquiry Committee, but he opted to remain absent from the enquiry proceedings, although initially he did participate therein. He had examined Muhammad Haneef and Shaukat, as P.W.2 and P.W.3, and himself appeared as P.W.1. On behalf of the Corporation, Muhammad Siddique, head of the enquiry committee, had made a statement as R.W. 2, and Project Manager, Abdul Rauf, as RW-3, while Abdul Khaliq, Senior Project Manager, described to be the star witness in the case, made his statement as R.W.1.
4. Sardar Ali 's duties have been detailed in the last para. At page 8 of the judgment. He has endeavored to show that he was mainly doing manual work. There is no cavil with the proposition that duties and not the designation or the emoluments of an official would determine his status, whether he is a workman or not. Duty roster of Sardar Ali, however, leaves little doubt about the fact that his job was of supervisory nature, as he had enough of staff under him and had been allocating different tasks to the members of the staff, assigning duties and distributing work amongst them. He was maintaining a number of important documents, had been marking presence or absence of his subordinates, in the attendance register Ex.R.14, calling their explanation and granting them leave. He was co-signatory respecting the receipts and dispatches of wheat and paddy. The witnesses examined by the Corporation have talked about the nature of the duties of Sardar Ali, who had admittedly been promoted on as bad as 1-7-1980, as a Purchase Officer. He was no longer a subordinate official in the set-up. The duties have been set out in the document Annexure 'A', and are as many as twenty-one. He has Purchase Inspector and Assistant Purchase Inspector under him, their duties being as detailed in Annexure 'B'. He is practically the administrative head at the purchase center. He gets work out of the entire staff there, supervises and controls them. Of course, he may be doing some manual or clerical work but if it is incidental to the main work, or substantial part of it, the incidental or ancillary duties will not divest him of his supervisory capacity.
5. In his familiar way the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has said, in the beginning, at page 5 in the judgment that an assessment of the facts of the case takes him to the conclusion that the petition is sound and all the contentions lean in favour of the petitioner. Indulgently he has affirmed the view that Sardar Ali is a workman, although in fact he is not. The learned lower Court has strained a lot, in keeping with his temperament and habit to keep the employee within the pale of a workman and to pull him out of the trouble, he had landed himself in. The. Learned Judge las himself advanced arguments in favor of the employee and endeavored to give a lie to the assertions made and contentions put forth by the employer. It is one of the averments of the employee that the Senior Project Manager had subjected him to duress and coercion and extorted his signatures on certain documents with ulterior considerations and mala-fide intentions. It is not known, if he had made a grievance against such colorable attitude of the officer to the higher authorities or had lodged a complaint with the police in that regard.
6. According to the appellants, the labour Court at Multan lacked territorial jurisdiction as well, and the grievance notice, has also the grievance petition, were barred by the law of limitation. Principle of master and servant applied to the case of the respondent, who could be rusted from service, on being treated as a servant, and when his services were no longer required. These contentions of the appellants, whenever, did not hold good, in the circumstances of the case, according to the respondent. It is up to the competent forum to make a conclusive determination in that behalf.
Although, according to the respondent, the appellants were seriously at fault, and as a counter- blast had made up a false case against him. This stand-point, however, could well be the other way round, as the Authorities of the Corporation could say that the respondent had been guilty of a grave and blatant act of delinquency and misappropriation, and had tried to wriggle out of it, by leveling a counter-allegation of similar nature against his employer or his superior. I shall add here that who-so-over was at fault must not go scot free and must adequately be punished. But it will be for the competent Court to hold that Sardar Ali is not a workman, but is an officer, holding post of a supervisory nature. I will direct that he would approach the proper forum for redress of his grievance. He will do so within a reasonable time (4-months). He states that he was reinstated in the year 1993, and is still in service. He will be permitted to continue, so long as the finding of the competent forum does not go against him. His entitlement to payment of back benefits will depend on the finding of the Court/forum, which takes cognizance of the matter afresh. He was ousted from service in June 1965. So long as final determination by the competent forum is not made in the matter, payment of back benefits for the intervening period (June 1985 to 1993) shall not be made to him, but at the same time, he will not be ousted from service. There shall be no order as to costs of this litigation.