' Mr.Riazul Hassan Alvi, learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore, on 15-8-1998, accepted Muhammad .laved Mian's grievance petition but without back benefits. The concern has come up in appeal to this Court, impugning the order of reinstatement of the employee, who has also preferred a parallel appeal, laying claim to back benefits, from the date of his removal from service. By this judgment, I propose to dispose of both the appeals together.
2. Mr. Javed was employed as administrative supervisor and his services were terminated on 8-11- 1994. He challenged the order by filing a grievance petition, under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and the same was contested by the concern by maintaining that the employee could not claim to be a workman, entitled to the aid of the labour laws in his favour, by having recourse to a Labour Court. According to the employer, he was holding an administrative post, and drawing a handsome salary running into four figures (Rs,5,000 per month). Besides, he had received his outstanding dues, in entirety, as full and final settlement, and had thus in fact given up the idea of re-joining service with the concern.
3. Javed Mian, however, pleaded otherwise. According to him, although he was designated as administrative supervisor, most of the duties he was performing were of manual or clerical character, and the order of his removal from service was not sustainable in law, considered from any angle. In this regard, a reference to the roster of his duties Exh. P-5/R-2 would be of relevance.
In the month of November, 1990, the assignments of Mr. Javed had been revised or reviewed, to certain extent, as per Exh. P.6, but the chart of the duties or the job description, as drawn up in March, 1994, would be of more relevance, being later in time and linked with the duties being performed by him, shortly before his exit from service. The same are indicative of the fact that although some of the duties were supervisory in nature, others were not. He was concerned with maintenance and repairs of computer, fax machines, etc. and he had to make arrangements for entertainment of guests and look after office canteen. He was also concerned with the booking and reservation of accommodation for officers' journeys by air/rail/road. He used to look after telephone exchange and prepare bidding documents for the marketing department. He was also responsible for receipt and dispatch of official mail and was to check the work of the steno-typist.
Duties were detailed on 29-10-1991 also, but the latest version was contained in the document dated 10-3-1994 (Exh. R-2). He was expected to check daily cleanliness of office, furniture, fixtures and canteen. Building maintenance was also his concern. He was required to visit different Government offices and agencies for outdoor duties of members of the staff. Verification of petty expenses, payment of vouchers, etc. were also his headache. Checking of security register was one of his enumerated tasks. This was besides other duties, which the higher officers could entrust to him for performance. Such duties were supposedly of miscellaneous and minor nature and not of special significance. In that behalf employer has endeavored to show that even such miscellaneous work was fairly important. Exhs.R 4 to 6 have been tendered to discredit the employee in that respect. But the documents are of no material help. Overtime sheets, security staff register etc. have only been initialed by him and project manager of some retired army officer has signed the same, in token of vindication or approval. As per Exh. R-2 (his job description) he was required to recommend leave applications of the subordinate staff and also outline disciplinary action against them, and documents Exhs. R-6 and 7 furnish proof of the fact that he could only record his recommendation and the approval was to be made by some person at higher level, by some responsible officer. This incidence would leave little doubt about the fact that he had not the final say in matters of miscellaneous nature,and in any case he was not responsible for administration of the concern. Mere nomenclature would not indicate or depict the true character or category of his posting. It is generally given to confer upon the incumbent a pseudo status, besides feeling of officers hip, and with a view to ward off his participation in any trade union activity and to preclude him to claim favorite 'status' of workman, entitled to a variety of monetary benefits, amenities and perquisites, as also a number of 'protections' under the lab our laws. This being the actual position, I find myself in full agreement with the view expressed by the learned lower Court, as regards the nature of the duties of the official, being not truly administrative, the same being largely and verily of manual and clerical character. It is so well- known that mere high-sounding designation and even quantum of emoluments of a person would not decipher and delineate the exact line of differentiation, whether he is a workman or one enjoying a higher status, the determining factor being the nature of the duties being performed. By all means, Muhammad Javed was a workman, not perched on a raised pedestal, despite drawing salary to the tune of Rs,5,000 on a little more or less. Well, then, he had every right to resort to Labour Court for redressed of his grievances. Competence of the grievance petition, filed under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, as such could not be questioned.
4. Appraisal of the history of his employment with the concern would be of interest. Originally in February, 1987, he had been appointed as Senior Office Assistant and the tenure was extended from time to time, on 3-3-1987 and 4-10-1987 (Exhs. P-1 and 3). He was then on 17-12-1987 offered appointment as Assistant Admn. Supervisor (Exh. P-4). Services of the official were terminated w,e,f, 3-10-1987, vide Exh. P-2, but on the following day .i,e, 4-10-1987 he was again appointed as Senior Office Assistant, for a period of 85 days (Exh. P-3). This had obviously been done to obviate the possibility of the official becoming permanent, by remaining in service on probation even, for a period exceeding 90 days, under Standing Order 1 (section 1, clause (b), 1968). It is, however, noteworthy that as per communications dated 6-9-1991 and 29-10-1991, available on the file of the lower Court, besides documents Exhs. P-7 to 10 the management had issued letters of appreciation and commendation certificates, highly appreciating and profusely praising the quality of his good work, wishing him a prosperous future at the same time. His work and conduct were described as exemplary. The company said, it was looking forward to his continued and valuable association with the concern. Per Exh. P-10 the Managing Director conveyed to Mr. Javed rich tributes for his performance, adding that the entire staff of the company joined him in wishing Mr. Javed a happy, successful and rewarding career. A certificate on 5-12-1994 (vide Exh. P-12) was also given to the effect that his performance was excellent, in the all-round sphere of the duties assigned to him.
The management wished enduring success for the future, in the real sense. Shortly afterwards, however, a notice of termination of his services was served on him on 8-11-1994 (Exh. P-11) and the only reason stated was that "the services were no more required". He was offered one month salary, in lieu of the notice period, under clause 11 of the letter of appointment, setting out the terms of his employment. I feel, I would be failing in my duty if I do not highlight the attributes of the official, as brought into lime-light by the company itself, vide documents Exhs.P.7 to 12 (except, of course the one Exh. as P-11).His capability and industry were truly admired and taken note of by the concern, for his promotion to a higher post and for enhancement in his emoluments, He was awarded mid-term increment, given an award and presented a crest, in recognition of the earnest bids made for achieving the objectives of the concern, and special mention was made of his dedicated efforts and his loyal and sustained contribution for the prosperous and ever-expanding future prospects of business of the company. He was even congratulated on completion of 5 years' service, described as a milestone in his career. His dedicated, integrated and overall excellent performance for securing for the company a brilliant future was acclaimed and painted in most vivid and richest possible colors.
5. I have no doubt in my mind about entitlement of the official to service of a show-cause notice and a charge-sheet. Without making him to face a domestic enquiry, he could not be ousted from service, having acquired the status of a permanent workman, "Services no longer required" did not constitute valid premises or a legally sustainable basis for bringing an end to the service of the official, who had put in several years of selfless service, for the cause of the concern and for betterment of its future. One would really be surprised and shocked to come across such a somersault in the approach of the concern, respecting suitability of the official for his retention in service, and sudden severance thereof, that too without any noticeable decline in his performance.
As already observed, he was at least entitled to a show-cause notice, and did not deserve abrupt exit from service in the apparently disdainful manner it was done. Labour laws certainly would not approve of adoption of such a course and a Court of law cannot endorse validity of such an act. As is so well-known, and as has been pronounced by the august apex Court of Country in the case reported as 1992 SCM R 505, Labour Laws are beneficent and benevolent laws for the lab our class and have to be construed liberally and generously for advancement of their cause.
' The mere fact that the official had received his arrears would not debar him from claiming continuance in service. I would uphold the viewpoint of the learned Court below that the development that the official had settled down with the company his claim would not amount to relinquishment on his part of his legal right to question the tenability or operativeness of the impugned order. Receipt of the outstanding dues had nothing to do with the employee's subsisting right of employment. The termination order, I having been passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of law and the official having been condemned unheard, the validity of the impugned order could not be vindicated. As the official was apparently stigmatized and victimized and exterminated without any equitable or valid justification and without observance of legal formalities, as postulated by the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (S.12(3)), the impugned order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny and stands rescinded. In this regard, the employee has rightly relied upon the observations and, pronouncements made by this Tribunal in a number of decided cases, amongst those a few reported as 1997 CLC 188/289/367. I will also hold him entitled to half of his emoluments for the period, he has been out of service. Back benefits, in full measure, are not being conceded, as he has not rendered service to the concern practically, for the period in question. Learned Labour Court's decision is affirmed, with certain variations. The employer's appeal is dismissed, and the employee's appeal is partially accepted. He will also be entitled to get costs of the entire - litigation.