DECISION ' Aggrieved by the order, dated 12-7-1999 of Labour Court No,VI Hyderabad whereby the grievance petition filed by respondent Shoukat Ali was allowed with direction that he be reinstated in service with all consequential back benefits within a period of one month, the Appellants Messrs Mehran Sugar Mills Limited have come in this appeal. As disclosed in the Memo. Of Appeal the respondent joined the service of Appellants Mills as a clerk in the Accounts Department as per order dated 10- 3-1970. Subsequently he was promoted as Assistant Accountant with effect from 1-10-1980 and his salary was raised to Rs,800 per month. He was ultimately promoted as Accounts Officer with effect from 1-1-1987 and was placed in the Officer's Grade-9. In that capacity he was assigned mainly the duties of supervisory, administrative and managerial nature which inter alia included (a) supervising the work of subordinate staff, (b) checking of daily cane purchase sheets and summaries, (c) checking of fortnightly payment summaries, (d) checking of calculation of Road- cess figures and preparation of related challan Forms, (e) checking of outstanding loan and advance list fortnightly, (f) checking of Mill loan Schedules and (g) checking of vouchers, cheques and Payment Sheets of Transport contractors. Apart from above he was also charged with duty to verify and approve T.A.D.A. Bills of staff which were paid only after checking/verification made by him. After the last mentioned promotion the respondent ceased to be a workman and was therefore, stopped from participating in the trade union activities in the appellants Mill. In the wake of said promotion he was also allowed facility of Conveyance Allowance vide orders dated 4th February, 1988 which was not allowed to any workman. In 1991 as per Policy of the Management he like other Officers, who were not covered under the I.R.O., 1969 was given benefit of enhanced salary and other Special Allowances. He got these benefits without any objection and signed duplicate copy of the order in token of having accepted the same.
2. In 1994 on account of short supply of Sugarcane which resulted in increasing its price and reduction of work load the Appellants Mills suffered a loss of Rs,76397889 and therefore, decision was taken to re-organize their Establishment apart from taking any other steps to curtail the expenses for the purpose of overcoming the losses. Inter alia services of certain highly paid Officers of Accounts Department including 2 Deputy Managers and 2 Accounts Officers including the respondent were terminated for bona fide reasons by way of retrenchment. The Deputy General Manager Finance was also persuaded to resign. Somehow the respondent after serving grievance notice challenged the order of his termination with the result mentioned above.
3. The respondent in support of his case has filed Affidavit-inEvidence and similarly the Affidavit-in- Evidence has also been filed on behalf of the Appellants Establishment. I have perused these Affidavits-inEvidence and heard arguments' of Ghulam Sarwar Chandio of the learned counsel for the Appellants Establishment and Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for the respondents.
4. The fate of the case largely depended upon the decision whether respondent Shoukat Ali was a workman at the time of termination of his service. No doubt it is a common ground that he started his services in the Appellants Mills as an Accounts Clerk. It is also an admitted position that subsequently he was promoted twice, first time as Assistant Accountant with effect from 1-8-1980 and then as Accounts Officer from 1-1-1987. As a result of second promotion, the appellants' case is that he was placed in Officer's Grade-9, ceasing to be a workman. It was from this stage that dispute arose between the parties as to the status of the respondent. As per respondent's own statement he continued to do the same job of workmen despite his promotion as Accounts Officer, the increase in emoluments notwithstanding. According to him he had no power of hire and fire nor had he control over any one. Nevertheless he had admitted in course of his cross-examination that after his promotion as Accounts Officer he had moved application for grant of the facility of Conveyance Allowance which was allowed to him vide Office Order R/B. It may be true that the quantum of his emoluments was not the determining factor of his status but the facility of Conveyance Allowance, in normal course, is not enjoyed by any workman. Furthermore it is also the respondent's own admission that during his tenure as Accounts Officer though referendum was held twice, yet he had not voted in both the referendums because he had no right to vote as he was holding the position of an Officer. His further admission was that'he was assigned the duties detailed in. H/1 which, for the sake of convenience, are reproduced as under:--
(1) Checking daily cane purchase sheets, summaries and maintaining of Register.
(2) Checking of Fortnightly payment summaries.
(3) Calculation, checking of Road Cess figures and preparation of 10-C Form and Road Cess challan.
(4) Preparation of J.V's.
(5) Checking of outstanding loan and advance list of fortnightly.
(6) Checking of Mills Loan Schedules.
(7) Subordination to Deputy Accounts Manager of Cane Account and Main Account.
(8) Checking of Vouchers, Cheques and Payment Sheets of Transport Contractors.The above list of duties assigned to him inter alia were of checking, (supervising) in nature. Checking is made of the work done by some other persons.
5. Apart from above Mr. Ghulam Qadir, Assistant Labour Welfare Officer in Appellants' Mills has stated in his Affidavit-in-Evidence that as Accounts Officer, the respondent was also doing the job of verifying and approving TA/DA Bills of the staff who were paid only after the checking was carried out by the Respondent. In support of his Statement he has referred to the respondent's initials appearing on bills at R/3 and R/4. He has also stated that in absence of Accounts Manager, the bills were approved by the respondents and in support of his such statement he has referred to one such bill at R/5 carrying the signatures of the respondent following the words "approved by".
Merely because in hierarchy of Officers if the respondent was made answerable to his next Superior Officer that would not mean that he was not an Officer.
6. From the above discussion, I am convinced that after the respondent was promoted as Accounts Officer, he ceased to be workman and as such Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable to him. The question arose what procedure was applicable to him for purpose of terminating his services. It was rightly argued by the learned advocate of the Appellants Establishment that the position of the respondent viz-a-viz the Appellants Company was of master and servant which was to be regulated by terms and conditions which governed the appointment of the respondent. It is an admitted position that services of respondent alone were not terminated but with him other Officers of his status and even superior to him were also made to vacate their positions. All this became necessary because the Appellants Company suffered huge financial losses and therefore, the retrenchment of the respondent and other Officers became necessary.
However, the learned counsel of the respondent has laid emphasis on Termination Order at Annexure A/3 which does not disclose any particular reason for termination of respondent's services. All what is mentioned in the said Order is that his services were no more required and hence they were terminated. In case of retrenchment also the services of retrenched personnel were not needed because they were considered as surplus to the requirement of the employer Company. The respondent has failed to prove that the terms and conditions of his appointment required prior notice to be given to him for termination of his services. Therefore if no such notice was given to the respondent the termination of his services could not be regarded as illegal.
' For the foregoing reasons I am of the view that there was nothing wrong with the order of termination of respondent's services. As a result the appeal is allowed and the order of termination of respondent's service stands restored.