DECISION ' The appellant Aziz-ur-Rehman filed grievance petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against respondent M/s. Ever Green Industries claiming that he was permanent worker of the said Industries and was working as Cutting Master for 16 years. On 26th July, 1996 he was verbally told that his services were no longer required and was stopped from working since that date. He then approached Administration Officer and other concerned authorities but without any result. Thereafter, he was constrained to serve grievance notice on 19-8-1996 to which he received a reply whereby he was though allowed to attend duty yet he was cautioned that he had to face domestic enquiry. According to the respondent's case the appellant absconded from duty and consequently his services were terminated. The respondent's version is that appellant did not have the status of workman as his main duties were either managerial or supervisory and as such the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain his petition. It is also their case that the appellant was promoted in 1990 and since then he never worked in clerical or manual cadre. Their case is that he was getting Rs,11,000 per month as his emoluments.
2. In view of the pleadings of the parties the learned Labour Court framed 4 issues and ultimately dismissed the grievance petition.
3. On careful perusal of the impugned judgment it would appear that the case has been more or less decided on the status of the appellants. The findings of the learned Labour Court are that there did not exist any relationship of employer and employee between the parties and as such answered 3 of the points of determination in the negative and on the 4th point the learned Labour Court has dismissed the grievance petition. However, from the discussion of the case made in the judgment it appears to me that what the learned Judge of Labour Court meant to hold that the appellant did not enjoy the status of workman. Even if he was held to be working in managerial or supervisory capacity in the said Industries, the relationship of the employer and employee could not be denied. The finding that the appellant was not a workman is based mainly on his own admissions made in course of cross-examination on his affidavit-in-evidence. His admissions are:- - "That he used to requisition the Bin Cards from the Store and others goods for stiching, that he used to recommend leave applications of the workers and issues gates passes to them, that the documents R. W.1 to R.W.3 shown to him in course of his cross-examination were signed by him as Production Manager. They were leave applications of different workers and had been forwarded by him with his recommendations. Similarly other documents produced by the respondent alongwith written statement were also admitted by him to have borne his signature."
' In view of these admissions, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant loses force that appellant was a workman.
4. It goes without saying that the appellant was initially employed as Cutting Master. Even if it is believed that he was subsequently given additional charge of the managerial/supervisory nature as has been mentioned by him in his affidavit-in-evidence, after a person by name Amiruddin who used to teach the workers in cutting, stitching and pattern making proceeded to Sharja, it would still follow that almost his whole time of duty was occupied by so-called such extra work, leaving his hardly anytime to devote to his routine manual or clerical work. It is also his admission that he used to impart training to the ladies whose number ranged from 35 to 100 at different times. The question is whether the training of ladies and supervising their work falls within the manual labour?
The answer to this question would obviously be in the negative. If so much extra load of work was done by him, as per his own statement, in addition to his actual duties of Cutting Master, then hardly any time was left for him to perform his duties as Cutting Master. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that all such work as discussed above and admitted by him, of managerial/supervisory nature was performed by him in addition to his actual duties as Cutting Master.
5. It appears to my mind that the respondents are correct in saying that at least after his promotion in 1990 the appellant has been doing the duties of managerial/supervisory nature.
Therefore, at the relevant time when his services were terminated he was not engaged in doing manual labour and therefore, could not be held as workman. Apart from this I endorse the line of argument adopted by the learned Lower Court. As provided in section 25-A, Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 it is only a workman who may file grievance petition in Labour Court. As is clear from the above discussion, the appellant was not a workman within the meaning of said provision of law. Accordingly the Labour Court has rightly dismissed his petition.
' The up-short of the above discussion is that the appeal is dismissed.