Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---- ----Ss. 2 (viii) & (xxviii), 25-A & 37-"Workmen"-"Employer"­Posting and designation of a person as incharge of a Branch of Bank-Does not necessarily imply that he manages the Branch-Bank employee posted as incharge of Branch-Grievance petition dismissed by Labour Court on ground that he was not a. workman- Emoluments Rs. 900 p. m. but no break-up given indicating that excluding allowances which do not form part of wages total wages exceeded Rs. 800 p. m.-No evidence indicative of managerial powers regarding grant of leave or appointment or action against employees-Circumstances raising inference that petition doing correspondence and preparing vouchers-Petitioner, in circum­stances, held, a workman and order of Labour Court set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for decision on merits. Kh. M. Farooq for Appellant. Irshad Ali Mian for Respondent. Date of hearing : 2nd February, 1983. JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the decision, dated 2nd March, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed on the sole ground that he was not a workman. 2. The learned lower Court has held that every branch is to be managed by some person. As the appellant was designated as incharge, it was held that he had been managing the branch. This is true that every branch is to be managed by some one but this is not necessary that a person posted in the branch and designated as incharge impliedly manages the branch. From the nature of duties assigned to him it can be judged whether he was actually managing the branch. Since the case of the appellant is that he is a workman, he had naturally to conceal his actual duties and the respondent had to disclose the actual duties, if they were managerial, but neither any duty roster or any orders passed by the appellant were produced before the learned lower Court. R. W-1 said nothing about the duties of the appellant in his examination-in-chief, except this that the appellant was entitled to certain allowances as manager but in this…

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