Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 1651 1985 SLD 1651 1985 PLC 196
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. LIIR-329 of 1994, decided on 26th June, 1984.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, 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

UNITED BANK Ltd., LAHORE

VS

Rao AKBAR LATIF, OFFICER, GRADEI, UNITED BANK Ltd., LAHORE

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---- ---S.2(xxviii)--"Workman"--Supervisor--For supervision it is necessary that workers to be supervised should be under personal control of supervisor and they should feel his presence--One cannot supervise effectively unless some kind of powers given by exercising which he can compel willing or unwilling workers to perform their duties--Bank Officer Grade--I holding Powers-of-Attorney---Performing duties of going through inspection reports for follow up action thereon, preparation of drafts to be signed by Zonal Head and having no employee under him--Held: could not be treated as performing supervisory duties. M.S. Bokhari for Appellant. Date of hearing: 19th June, 1984. JUDGMENT The decision dated 5-5-1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent has been directed to be re-instated in service without back benefits. 2. The respondent is an officer Grade-I. On the allegations of misconduct he was delivered a charge-sheet Exh. P.1 and an enquiry was held, which culminated in his dismissal from service. As the case has not been argued on merits, the charge levelled against the respondent array not be re-capitulated here. They are detailed in the charge-sheet Exh. P.I. Enquiry was not properly held as no prosecution witness was examined and no opportunity was afforded to the respondent to produce defence evidence. The only point that has been argued is that the learned lower Court has wrongly held the respondent as a workman. The line of arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent is a power-of-attorney-holder and his duties being supervisory and pay exceeding -Rs.800, he is not covered by the definition of workman given in section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. On this point the statements of the respondent and R.W.3. are relevant. According to the evidence, the duties of the respondent were to go through the inspection reports, to follow up the action to be taken on them, prepare drafts of letters to be signed by the Zonal Head, to look after the affairs of the five…
🔒
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