Law: Workers Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972

Section: 2(c)

Workers Children (Education) Ordinance (XI, of 1972) S. 2 (c)-"Worker"-Definition--Whether a particular employee falls within ambit of definition of "worker" -Question to be deter mined not only by amount of salary, but also by nature of em ployee's duty-Work of employee not answering description of works mentioned in definition-Such employee, held, would not be covered by Ordinance. It is not only the amount of the salary, which determines the question as to whether a particular employee of the petitioner-Company falls within the ambit of the definition of the "worker" given in the Workers Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972, but the nature of his duties, is also pertinent. It may be observed that simpliciter the fact that a person is drawing less than Rs. 1,000 will not make him a worker within the definition of the Ordinance. But it is also to be examined as to whether his work falls within the compass of the works mentioned in the definition of the term `worker'. If the work of an employee does not answer the description of the works given in the aforesaid definition, he is not covered by the said Ordinance. M/s. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd., v. M/s. Pakistan Tobacco Employees' Union, Dacca P L D 11961 S C 403 ; Bata Shoe Company, Lahore v. Bata Shoe Company Ltd., and another 1971 P L C 1, Mohammad Yakoob v. Managing ,Director, Punjab. Vegetable Ghee& General Mills Ltd., Lahore 1970 P L C 137 ; Mohammad Aqil. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal P L D 1978 Kar, 649 ; Gulab Khan v. Abbasi Textile Mills Ltd. 1966 P L C 21 ; Staff Union v. Pakistan Security Printing Corporation Ltd. 1961 P L C 691 ; Bashir Malik v. Punjab Labour Courts P L D 1973 Lah. 594; Dost Mohammad Cotton Mills Ltd., Karachi v. Mohammad Abdul Ghani P L D 1975 Kar. 342 and Pak News Ltd. v. Sind Labour Court, Karachi and 2 others P L D 1976 Kar. 73 ref. Date of hearing : 19th March, 1981.                                                                            …