Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S. 2(xxviii)(b)---Workman---Exclusion of employee from definition of workman---Such exclusion would envisages, (1) duties of supervisory nature, and (2) wages exceeding Rs.800 per month---Commercial Supervisor of Pakistan Railways admittedly performing supervisory duties in absence of evidence regarding wages, held, was wrongly declared as non-workman by Labour Court. JUDGMENT This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 27-10-1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan whereby the grievance petition of the appellant has been dismissed. 2. The facts are that on the allegation that the appellant had charged less fare while booking livestock, an amount of Rs.3,552 were ordered to be deducted from the salary of the appellant in 24 equivalent instalments. The respondent in the written statements raised objection that the appellant was not a workman and that the grievance petition was time-barred. The learned lower Court has answered the objection in favour of the respondent and holding that the allegation had been proved against the appellant observed that the deduction was rightly ordered. So far as the objection of the respondent to the effect that the appellant is not a workman is concerned the contention is that the appellant is a supervisor. No doubt, the appellant admitted this fact, but there is no evidence with regard to the wages. In exception (b) to section 2(xxviii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 wherein the term `workman' has been defined, there are two conditions for ousting an employee from the definition of `workman' One is that he should have supervisory duties and the other is that his wages should exceed Rs.800 per month. Since there is no evidence…

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