Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 1451 1982 SLD 1451 1982 PLC 226
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-273 of 1981, heard on 1stJune, 1981.
Z. A. CHANNA, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

RAB NAWAZ

VS

MESSRS RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. AND ANOTHER

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)­ Ordinance (VI of 1968) - -- S. 2 (i) and S. O. 12 (3) read with Industrial Relations Ordi­nance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25-A-"Workman"-Whether an emp­loyee was a workman-Test-Nature of duties whether involving manual or clerical work-Determining factor-Direct, immediate and substantial part of work for which employed and not sundry duties incidentally performed-Chowkidar performing additional duties of checking incoming and outgoing trucks, counting of bags received and sent out and taking samples of rice received for purpose of checking its quality - Merely performing such duties incidentally and not as part of main and direct duty for which emp­loyed-Not a workman - Not entitled to grievance petition against termination of service. Brooke Bond (Pak.) Ltd. v. General Secretary, Union Karkunane Brooke Bond P L D 1969 Lah. 717 fol. Mahmood Mubbashir for Appellant. Date of hearing: 1stJune, 1981. DECISION This appeal is directed against a decision of the learned IV Labour Court, given on 23rd April, 1981, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant, Challenging the orders of his dismissal on the ground that he was not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders and conse­quently was not entitled to file or maintain a grievance petition against the termination of his services under clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25-A, 1. R. O. 2. The sole point which falls to be considered in the present appeal is whether the appellant is- a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders. It is not disputed that the appellant was a Chowkidar in the Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Ltd., the first respondent herein. Rely­ing on the various decisions of this Tribunal to the effect that ordi­narily a Chowkidar, Watchman or a Security officer is not employed to do manual or clerical work and consequently would not come within the definition of workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders, the learned Labour Court has held that 'the appellant was not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders and has, accordingly, dismissed his grievance petition. It was, however, contended…
🔒
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