Case Details

Citation(s)
1986 SLG 2281 1986 SLD 2281 1986 PLC 773
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 2205 of 1984, decided on 4th February, 1986.
MUHAMMAD AFZA1 LONE AND MUHAMMAD ZAFARULLAH, JJ.

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

MUHAMMAD SALEEM SH.

VS

PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- ---Art. 199--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial - Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1969), S. 2(i)--"Workman"--Branch Manager of Insurance Company provided with a car, a telephone, an office and typist--Manual work, held, entails physical exertion as distinguished from mental and intellectual exercise--Soliciting insurance business primarily involves knowledge of ins and outs of insurance, successfully advocating its benefits and persuading others to take insurance policy--Moving from one client to another in connection with such a business, held, would hardly lend a Branch Manager of Insurance Company a complex on of "manual work" to his assignment--Status of workman could not be granted to such employee--Order of Appellate Tribunal being just could not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. M. Farani for Petitioner. Sardar Sami Hayat for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th February, 1986. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.--The petitioner was working as a Branch Manager, with the respondent-Company and drawing a consolidated salary of Rs.1,273. His services were dispensed with. He called in question the termination of his services, on a number of grounds through a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The petition was contested by the respondent inter alia on the plea that the petitioner held a supervisory position; he was not a workman and thus could not invoke the provisions of the I.R.O. and the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. 2. The Labour Court took the view that as the petitioner had to run for the Insurance business, to achieve a particular target, the nature of his duties was manual and not supervisory. With this view the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal did not agree and maintained that: -- ".... He should have shown that he was covered by definition of workman given in section 2 (i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Going door-to-door and asking people to get themselves insured with the appellant-company was neither a manual nor clerical work. Manual work is that which is done by hands. For clerical work a typist had been…
🔒
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