Pakistan Case Law
2009 PLC 260

JAVAID HUSSAIN NAQI vs MEMBER BAORD OF DIRECTORS, MCB and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2009 PLC 260
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.C.P.L.A. No,1069 of 2008
Date2009-02-16
Judge(s)Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and M. Javed Buttar
Authored bySardar Muhammad Raza Khan
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the Labour Court's decision reinstating the petitioner and held that the petitioner, as a Branch Manager, did not qualify as a "workman" under the law. The core legal question was whether a bank branch manager performing supervisory and managerial duties falls within the definition of a "workman" so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The Supreme Court held that an employee serving as a Branch Manager performing managerial and supervisory functions, regardless of the size of the particular branch, is not a "workman" and therefore the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a grievance petition under the relevant ordinance. The key principle laid down is that the nature of duties performed as a Branch Manager is inherently managerial and supervisory, excluding such persons from the definition of a workman, and the physical size of the bank branch has no bearing on this classification.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a bank Branch Manager performing managerial and supervisory duties falls within the definition of a workman?
  • Does the size of a bank branch have any nexus with the nature of duties performed by a Branch Manager for the purpose of determining his status as a workman?
  • Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction to entertain a grievance petition filed by a bank Branch Manager under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
workmanbranch managerlabour court jurisdictionindustrial relationsleave to appealmaster and servant

' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- Javaid Hussain Naqi seeks leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 30-5-2008 of learned Lahore High Court, Multan Bench whereby, on acceptance of appeal of the respondent, the judgment, dated 4-10-2007 of the Labour Court, reinstating the petitioner, was set aside. The main ground that prevailed with the learned High Court was that the petitioner was not a "workman" and hence the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain his grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations-Ordinance, 1969.

2. This Court in Dilshad Khan Lodhi v. Allied Bank of Pakistan 2007 PLC 41 has held that employee of a Bank holding a branch and performing a supervisory work although have no power of hire and fire but nature of duties performed by such employee appearing to be of managerial and supervisory nature, such employee would fall beyond the ambit and purview of the term "workman".

3.. The present petitioner also is a Branch Manager of Muslim Commercial Bank, performing the duties of managerial and supervisory nature. It is not in the last Branch alone but, according to para. No,5 of his grievance petition (pp.65), he has all along been working as Branch Manager at different stations since November, 1979. Learned High Court was, therefore, justified in holding, in the. Light of the above referred judgment of this Court, that the petitioner was not a "workman" and hence the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain his petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

4.The arguments of the learned counsel that the branch in which the petitioner was last posted, was a small branch, is altogether out of context. The size of a branch has no nexus with the nature of duties of the Manager, which always remain of managerial and supervisory nature. It would be ridiculous to observe that the Manager of a large branch would not be a "workman" and that of a small branch would be. There being no force in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

Cited by 9 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.