Law: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)

Section: 2

West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance (IV of 1968) S. 2(u)(iv) - "Workman" - Foreman performing supervisory functions-Not a workman. A foreman is neither a clerk nor a skilled or unskilled manual worker. His functions are purely supervisory in nature. Therefore, it is obvious that such person was employed in a managerial or administrative capacity and as such he cannot be treated a workman as defined under section 2 (u) (iv) of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968. Glaxo Laboratories (Pak.) Ltd., Dacca v. Glaxo Employees' Union 1969 P L C 326 ref. The Workers of Bata Shoe Co., Lahore v. Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. and another 1971 P L C 1; C. W. Raymond v. Ford Motor Co. of India Ltd. (1950) 2 F J R 100 and Crushing (Pakistan) Ltd. Workers' Union, Lahore v. Messrs Crushing (Pakistan) Ltd., Lahore 1962 P L C 1275 rel. Date of hearing : 18th January 1971.   ORDER This is an appeal directed against the order of the learned Chairman, Labour Court, Central Zone, Lahore dated 7-4-1970 in an application under section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968. The learned Court rejected the application on the ground that Muhammad Rafiq Malik, appellant, was a foreman when he was dismissed and not a work man as defined in section 2 (u) of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968. 2. Mr. Hafiz Muhammad Qureshi, Advocate, for the applicant contended that mere designation could not decide the functions of a person. 3. Mr. Muhammad Zaman Qureshi, Advocate for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the appellant on his own showing was a foreman and his functions were purely of supervisory nature and as such did not fall within the definition' of a workman as given in the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968. 4. Mr. Hafiz Muhammad Qureshi in support of his con tention relied on a ruling of the Dacca High Court in case Glaxo Laboratories (Pak) Ltd., Dacca v. Glaxo Employees' Union. (1969 P L C 326), in which it was observed, "it is true designation by itself would not conclusively determine the nature and function of an employee. But it is also true that it is an important…