This is an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordi--nance, 1969, hereinafter mentioned as the Ordinance, brought by parooq Ahmed, Ex-Assistant Manager, Agricultural Development & Supplies Cor--poration, Ahmadpur East, for re-instatement in service as having been terminated allegedly on illegal basis. According to the termination order (photocopy Exh. P. 2) the petitioner was terminated owing to unsatisfactory performance and unsuccessful completion of his probationary period. Initially, he was appointed as Assistant Manager at Jaranwala, District Lyallpur, on 16th June, 1976, vide appointment order, photocopy Exh. P. 1 and terminated vide order dated 25th August, 1977. The contention of the petitioner is that he was not served with any charge- sheet or given a chance of enquiry and his termination virtually amounts to dismissal from service.
2. The main contention raised in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent- Corporation is that the petitioner is not a 'workman' and cannot, therefore, invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Court for redressal of his grievance. On merits, it was maintained that the services of the petitioner were terminable without notice during the probationary period and even after satisfactory completion of probationary period his services were liable to termination on one month's notice under the terms and conditions laid down in the appointment order. So it was contended that the petitioner had been rightly terminated and no right guaranteed or secured to him under any law was infringed.
3. The petitioner examined himself in support of the petition and his statement was rebutted by Abdul Hamid Supervisor (Stores) produced on behalf of the respondent-Corporation. According to the petitioner's statement his functions were to check the stocks of fertilizers, to prepare daily statement of stocks, to maintain the ledgers of the office, to maintain the cash book and to go to sale points and to count the stock physically with no authority to appoint or remove the workers or to take any kind of disciplinary action against them. In the cross-examination he stated that he could not say definitely if he was holding a gazetted post as Assistant Manager of a branch of the Corporation. He, however, admitted that he was disbursing officer of the pay bills of his staff and that the accounts regarding seeds and fertilizers were operated upon by him and the District Manager jointly till before Febru--ary, 1977, whereafter the function was transferred to the District Accounts Officer. He further stated that the bills of all the contractors were paid under the joint signatures of the District Manager and himself, that ten supervisors, seven storemen and 22 pledars were on the strength of the staff at Ahmed Pur East branch of the Corporation of which he was the Assistant Manager and that an Office Assistant, Typist, one Accounts Clerk and one peon used to work under him and assisted him in the performance of his duties. He admitted that approximately 49 workers used to work in the Corporation branch at Ahmedpur East where he worked and he used to check the local five sale depots. Lastly, he also admitted that he could forward any move for the disciplinary action against the workers of his branch without recommending any action.
4. According to the statement of Abdul Hameed, Supervisor (Stores), the petitioner as Assistant Manager was the primary officer of the Corporation branch and was entrusted with the duties to operate the Bank accounts, to pay the contractors' bills and to disburse the salaries of the employees of Tehsil Headquarters, that all the store supervisors, storemen, pledars and chaukidars posted within tehsil work under the Assistant Manager and as such the petitioner was an officer of the Corporation branch and a gazetted Government servant. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the petitioner could not allow leave to the witness but the fact was that he could allow him leave to the extent of four days at a time, though he could not readily produce the record empowering the petitioner to sanction leaves to the staff or to hire or fire the workers or operate the Bank accounts.
5. According to the photocopy, Exh. R. 4, regarding approved pay scales of officers and staff of P. A.
D. & Supplies Corporation placed on record and not controverted on behalf of the petitioner, the post of Assistant Manager stands mentioned at serial number 10 of the gazetted officers of the Corporation. According to the photocopy Exh. R. 5, showing details of the staff working at Ahmedpur East branch during 1975-76 comprised of one Assistant Manager, one Assistant, 11 supervisors, two accounts clerks, one Typist, seven storemen and twenty-one pledars/chaukidars. Under Notification No. S. O. (A-II)-9-25/74-II dated 20th May, 1976 of the Government of the Punjab, Agricultural Department, the Punjab Government (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 were made applicable to the employees of the Punjab Agricultural Development & Supplies Corporation. Under further notific--ation dated 21st March, 1977, a set of regulations for recruitment to the P. A. D. & S. C.
Service and prescribing conditions of service was notified. Under regulation 3 of the said Regulations, the employees drawing pay in N. P. S. No. 16 have been termed to be the Officers and not officials of the Corporation. Under regulation 15, the services of a member of the Corporation staff have been made liable to termination on 30 days' notice or 30 days' pay in lieu thereof.
5-A. The learned counsel for the parties have confined their arguments to the preliminary legal proposition whether the petitioner can be held to be a 'work--man' to come to the labour Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the definition of 'Employer' and that of 'Workman' as given in section 2(viii) and section 2(xxviii) of the Ordinance and has argued that unless the petitioner is shown to have b. En empowered to employ workmen in the establishment or to perform mainly managerial on administrative functions at his job, he could not be put out of the pail of workers and even under the definition of workman given under section 2,d) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, hereinafter mentioned as the Standing Orders Ordinance, his work having been mostly of clerical nature he muse be regarded to be a workman under that law, too. He has relied on various authorities on the point including Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills Limited v. Muhammad Abdul Ghani and another (1975 L L C (Kar.) 106) the decision wherein was sought to be challenged by the Management but special leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Court vide its judgment reported in 1975 L L C 211, on the other hand it was argued on behalf of the respondent-Management that in view of the functions performed by the petitioner as an employee of the establishment controlled by the Government with a status of gazetted Government servant, he could not be regarded to be a worker.
6. No doubt, an employee of an industrial establishment aggrieved of his termination without enquiry contemplated by the Standing Orders Ordinance before invoking the jurisdiction of Labour Court must prove himself to be a workman under that Ordinance. Because under section 25-A of the Ordinance, no person other than a worker under the Ordinance can move the Labour Court in respect of any grievance arising out of the provisions of the Ordinance or under any other law for the time being in force. So a grievance under the Ordinance is different from the one arising under the Standing Orders Ordinance which ensures minimum service conditions to the worker of industrial and commercial establishments. It would be rather fallacious to say that a worker under the Ordinance can Ipso facto be benefited by they provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance even without proving himself to be a workman under the said Ordinance. Because the rights ensured under the Ordinance are distinct from those promised under the Standing Orders Ordinance wherein a different definition of workman has been given. The purpose of the latter legislation appears to give certain beneficial considerations in regard to the service conditions of the industrial workers belonging to special category of workers who are supposed to do nothing more than purely manual or clerical work, be it skilled or unskilled. The protection of the law has not been extended to the category of supervisors or the employees working at a higher strata of the industrial employment so as to avoid the obligation of giving the liberal benefits to multipal categories of industrial service.
7. Under the scheme of the Ordinance the workers thereunder have been given the right to establish and join association of their choosing (sections 3 and $), to enforce their rights against unfair labour practice or against discrimi--nation in regard to their employment and promotion etc. (section 15(c)), to enforce their right of employment against dismissal discharge or removal on account of their lawful Trade Union activities (section 15 (d)), to secure the adjudication of industrial disputes by Labour Courts (section 32), to ensure the maintenance or observation of the conditions of service of workmen during the pendency of legal proceedings relating to an industrial dispute (section 47) and also to enforce the penalties against the breach of settlements or the provisions of the Ordinance. The main object, however, of the Standing Orders Ordinance is to ensure under pain of penalty a set of minimum service conditions to the workers of industrial and commercial establishments and the class of such workmen has been fixed by virtue of special definition of "workman" given therein. So only the persons doing manual or clerical work, whether skilled or unskilled, are covered by the Standing Orders Ordinance. Such employees as are engaged in supervisory or administrative capacity have been purposely excluded from its scope. In a disputed case in regard to the status of an industrial employee the right approach would be from the angle of examining the actual work he is required to perform to fulfil his job. If his duties irrespective of being skilled or unskilled are purely manual or clerical in nature then he is a person covered under the Standing Orders Ordinance, whatever designation he carries or the pay he gets.
The rights ensured under the said Ordinance, for instance, pertain to the regulation of working hours, holidays, pay days, workers compulsory group insurance, the payment of bonus, the stoppage or closure of establishment, workers termination simpliciter, re-employment of retrenched workers and most important of all, the punishments of workers against misconducts for which a guarded procedure of enquiry has been provided tangible lapses wherein stand checked and the workers benefited in notable situations.
8. From the above submissions a distinction between the objects of two major labour legislations have been made clear and it can be concluded that in order to invoke the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance for any right assured thereunder the petitioner moving the Labour Court must prove himself to be a worker under that law independent of his being a worker under the provisions of the Ordinance. So a restricted definition of worker give in the Standing Orders Ordinance does not admit of any category of worker's other than the workers doing purely manual or clerical work Any element of administrative or supervisory functions of important nature ought to take him out of the pail of the workers.
9. In the present case the petitioner was admittedly incharge of Tehsil Headaquarters office of the Corporation as Assistant Manager and a disburs--ing officer of the salaries of the staff working with him in the office. He also admitted that at least one Office Assistants, a Typist, one Accounts Clerk and one peon worked under him whereas 49 workers in all worked at the branch of which he was incharge. It was also his duty to prepare the balance-sheet of stock and also to supervise and check the five sale-depots From the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the respondent the petitioner has been shown mentioned amongst the gazetted officers of the Corporation vide document Exh. R.
4. He has also been shown a principal officer of the branch office with 42 employees working with him vide document Exh. R.
5. Under such circumstances he could hardly be regarded a workman to be amenable to the benefits of service assured under the Standing Orders Ordinance.
10. The view taken by the learned Single-Judge of the Sind & Baluchis--tan High Court reported in 1975 L L C 105 cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a paid servant who is directly responsible to the owner and is supervising the entire establishment falls within the definition of employer and any deficiency in such position would bring him within the definition of workman was not adopted by the Division Bench of the same High Court in Muhammad Aqil v. Chairman, Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal (1975 PLC 194). In that case an employee being incharge of a printing section of the industrial establishment was held to be an employer and not a workman in view of the definition of the term `establishment' with an observation to the effect that there was no substance in the contention that a person to come within the definition of employer has to be incharga of whole of the establishment of the employer for he may as well be incharge of the part of the establishment. As for the esteemed judgment of Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner the leave to appeal was refused on the ground that the person held to be the worker had no supervisory functions at all after he was asked to act on the instructions of another officer incharge of the section. No proposition regarding the status of an employee vis-a-vis the definition of employer was touched in the judgement. So the Supreme Court authority was also not applicable is the present case. In view of the evidence on record the petitioner was fully incharge of an independent branch of the Corporation a Tehsil Headquarters as Assistant Manager and as such stood out of the definition of workman for his being concerned with administrative and managerial functions is the establishment. In the result the petitioner is held not to be a workman and the petition dismissed. The file maybe consigned. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.