' Syed Asghar Ali Shah appellant was employed in the establishment of the respondent viz Packages Limited, Ferozepur Road, Lahore. He was terminated in July, 1973 when he applied for one month's leave on 2nd July, 1973.
2. On 19th July, 1973 the application filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the respondent before the Junior Labour Court, Lahore praying for his re-instatement with back benefits.
3. In the application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance the appellant challenged his termination on the ground that he was victimized for his Trade Union activities and on account of malicious and inimical treatment towards him by Mr. M. A. Malik an officer of the respondent. The appellant also maintained that while terminating him no enquiry was held and no opportunity to show cause was afforded to him. The respondent resisted the application of the appellant and pleaded inter alia that the appellant being a Merchandizing Officer and drawing a monthly salary of more than Rs, 800 was not a workman and could not therefore legally file an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. On merits it was pleaded that the appellant was found responsible for misconduct and two show-cause notices were served on him. He was also given an opportunity to explain his conduct. The explanation offered by him was found to be unsatisfactory. Mr. Fasahat-ur-Rehman, the then Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, Lahore by his order dated 29th June 1974, conculded that the appellant was workman and consequently without recording findings on the merits of the case he ordered the re-instatement of the appellant with full back benefits.
4. The respondent filed appeal before this Court. I accepted the appeal by my order dated 3rd July 1975, and remanded the case with the direction that findings on merits be also recorded before disposal of the case. I however abstained from giving finding on the point as to whether the appellant was a workman or not.
5. The case has again been considered and decided by Junior Labour Court No, 2, Lahore on 30th October 1975. The said learned Court has found that when the appellant was terminated he was performing managerial and supervisory duties and therefore he was not a workman. His petition has consequently been dismissed by the learned Lower Court on 30th October 1975.
6. The said order has been impugned through the present appeal. The main point for consideration is as to whether the appellant at the time of his termination happened to be a workman and thus competent to file an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The expression "worker" and "workman" has been defined in clause (xxviii) of section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. According to this definition any person not falling within the definition of employer who is employed in an establishment or industry for hire or reward is a workman and a person who has been dismissed, discharged retrenched, laid off or otherwise removed from employment is included but there are exceptions to it and the exceptions are that a person who is employed mainly in managerial or administration capacity is not a workman and similarly a person who being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding Rs, 800 p.m. Or performs, either because of the nature of the duty attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of managerial nature is also not a workman.
7. In the circumstances of the under-consideration case it transpires from the contents of Annex. P.
W. A. At (page 227) of the Lower Court file that the appellant who was previously a Stenographer was promoted as Merchandizing Officer and was placed on probation for six months. This-is an office order dated 8th August 1972. At page 221 1. e. Annex. P/C there is chart of Merchandizing Department and according to this chart Merchandizing Officer is shown as an Officer having so many staff subordinate to him such as cashier, Oliver, sweeper. It transpires from pages 199 to 209 of the Lower Court file that the appellant has been calling explanations of their subordinates. The pay slip issued to the appellant on 1st April 1973: is at page 195 of the Lower Court file which Annex.
PW/L. According to this step the designation of the appellant has been shown as Merchandizing Officer and his monthly salary has been shown as Rs, 812 p.m. It would thus appear from the documentary evidence on the record that the appellant at the time of his termination was a Merchandizing Officer. His monthly salary was more than Rs, 800 p.m. He had Account Staff subordinate to him.
8. In Messrs Hussain Sugar Mills Limited, Karachi and another v. Ali Muhammad Moosa it has been held by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal that an accountant with salary of Rs, 1,300 p.m. Having account staff and cashier under him was a Supervisor and not a workman within the meaning of section 2 (xxiii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In Jamal Wali Muhammad v. Managing Director Adam Limited. Karachi Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal found that an employee in supervisory capacity with pay of Rs, 850 p.m. And fringe benefit was not a workman and hence not entitled to relief under section 25-A. 1975 PLC 119, 1975 PLC 147 and PLD 1969 Lah. 717 can also be referred to in this behalf.
9. In the light of what has been said above it is concluded that the appellant was not a workman at the time of his termination and therefore, he has no locus standi to file an application under section 25-A of the Industrial-Relations Ordinance, 1969. There is thus no merit in this appeal which is-accordingly dismissed while the impugned order is upheld. 1975 PLC 66 1975 PLC 1441 2 1 2