Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 43 2024 SLD 43 2024 SCMR 71
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 6117 of 2021, decided on 2nd October, 2023. (Against the Order dated 23.09.2021 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in W.P. No.503-P of 2021)Date of hearing: 2nd October, 2023.
Present: Yahya Afridi, Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Muhammad Ali Mazhar, JJ
Nemo for
Respondents.

AMAN ULLAH---Petitioner

VERSUS

UNITED BANK LIMITED through President and others---Respondents

Law: Industrial Relations Act, 2012

Section: 2(xxxiii),33

(a) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)--- ----Ss. 2(xxxiii) & 33---Workman---Scope---Manager of a private Bank---Whether a workman for purposes of Industrial Relations Act, 2012---Held, that record reflected that the petitioner was posted as Manager of a private bank's branch and also had the power of attorney of the Bank and two other persons, namely the Operation Manager, and the Chief Teller, both were performing their duties under the petitioner's supervision---Petitioner admitted that his functions included managing, coaching and monitoring of staff; it was also his job to physically verify and check vouchers and cash at the time of closing of the Branch every day---During further cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that in light of the powers granted to him in the power of attorney, he used to supervise, cancel and pass instruments during the course of his daily work---Wide ranging and comprehensive powers conferred upon the petitioner were of such nature and responsibility that could only be granted to a person having the status of manager, officer or the person having the category of supervisory duties---All courts below after proper appreciation of facts rightly held that the petitioner was not 'workman', hence he could not maintain a grievance petition in the NIRC---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. 21st Century Dictionary (page 833); Words and Phrases, (Permanent Edition 26 at Pages 366 and 369); Hodges v. Bankers Surety Co., 152 Ill.App. 372; Gillis v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 27 S.E.2d 283, 285, 223 N.C. 470, 150 A.L.R. 1330; Manning v. Lamb, D.C.Mun.App., 89 A.2d 882, 884 and Black's Law Dictionary, (Tenth Edition), Page 1104 ref. (b) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)--- ----S. 2(xxxiii)---Workman---Scope---Mere nomenclature of an assigned post is not relevant in determining the status of an employee and assessing whether he is performing the duties of a worker or workman, or a manager, officer or supervisor---Rather the paramount and predominant consideration is the nature of the job, and if any employee claims that he was performing the duties of a worker/workman, the burden lies on him…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492