MEBRAN JUTE MILLS LTD., KARACHI Versus SADRE ALAM

DECISION

This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court reinstating the petitioner (respondent herein) with full back benefits, under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969.

2. The petitioner was working as a Lineman in the Cop‑Winding Department of the Mill, It was the case of the petitioner that there was a scuffle between him and one Muhammad Saeed another workman, who tried to hit him with a "bobbin" and, therefore, he had hit him back. The matter was reported to the authorities. A charge‑sheet was issued the next day i.e. 9‑10‑1988, which had been replied to by him. There was an order from the management for holding of domestic enquiry and Aafiat Khan, the Supervisor of the Personnel Department, was appointed as the `Enquiry Officer'. On the submission of the enquiry report, he was dismissed from service on 21‑2‑1989.

3. It was stated on behalf of the respondents (appellants herein) in their Reply Statement that the petitioner was working in supervisory capacity and his main job was to direct, supervise and control the cop‑winders, working on the machines, and therefore the petition did not lie. The contention of the petitioner that he had been much more sinned against than sinning came to be controverted.

4. The petitioner, apart from himself, examined Saeed, who was the complainant in the matter. The management examined Muhammad Azam K. Azmati, Personnel and Administration Officer and Aafiat Khan, the Enquiry Officer.

5. The Labour Court found that the petitioner was a workman and also that he was not the aggressor; and therefore allowed the petition with the direction for petitioner's reinstatement with full back benefits.

6. Syed Zamirul Hassan, learned counsel for the appellants strenuously argued that the respondent was not a workman, and therefore the very order itself is insupportable. All that was stated in support of this contention was mentioned earlier which was that he was working in a supervisory capacity, and that he was drawing a pay of Rs.1,050 per month. That is what Muhammad Azam K. Azmati deposed in the Court, but it is to be noted that it was not he who had signed the Reply Statement as pointed out by Mr. Farid Gul. On the other hand the respondent had stated that he was working with his hands on the machine as the other 60 workers were, and he had to be initiating and correcting his colleagues on the machines.

7. It is to be noted that even Muhammad Azam K. Azmat had conceded that it was Shariq who was incharge of the Department where the petitioner was working, and further he used to work on duty assigned to him. He has also stated that it was not within the' respondent's power to deduct wages of workers. All that he could do was to submit reports. Shafiq, who was examined at the domestic enquiry, also admits the same position. The `Job Description' of the petitioner was not provided by the management; nor the appointment letter to show his designation.

8. Syed Zamirul Hassan, learned counsel for the appellants, referred to a number of cases wherein it was held that a person holding the job of supervisor would not come within the preview of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The cases cited by him were General Manager, Hotel Intercontinental v. Bashir A. Malik PLD 1986 SC 103, The Workers of Bata Shoe Company v. Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. 1971 PLC 1, Ganga R. Madhani v. Standard Bank Ltd. and others 1985 SCMR 1511, Tarbela Joint Venture v. Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.‑W.F.P. and two others PLD 1975 Peshawar 240 and a few other cases. It is not necessary to detail them as it is a well‑settled law by now, that the main criterion to determine whether the petitioner is a workman or not, is to look to the nature of the job he performs and not the emolument and rank held by him. I have got no hesitation, in the circumstances of the case, in affirming the findings of the Labour Court that the petitioner is a workman.

9. The question that now remains to be examined is whether any misconduct on the part of the petitioner had been made out, to visit him with the punishment of dismissal.

10. In the domestic enquiry a number of witnesses had been examined in support of the charge namely, Saeed himself, Shafiq, Muhammad Mukhtar, Ali Hussain, Shamsher and Compounder Abdul Qadir, who was only a formal witness.

11. Saeed during the enquiry had stated that the dispute had arisen not over the objection taken by the petitioner for his coming late from the canteen, but about something different; (the size of the bundle tied by the respondent). He has also stated that it was he, who a few minutes after the objection about his late return from the canteen had been raised, found that the bundle fastened for him by the respondent was smaller in size to that of another person named by him had shouted, to the petitioner that he had seen many mulish creatures before and knew how to deal with him. He also mentions that he had caught hold of the respondent. Shafiq was not a witness of the incident, but Muhammad Mukhtar had said that he had seen both of the person grappling with each other and could not say as to who had given the first blow. Shamsher further mentioned that Saeed had a "bobbin" in his hand which he had raised for striking on the respondent's head. The statement of Ali Hussain is also to the same effect, though he is reticent about the "bobbin".

12. It is true that there is a mention of some bleeding from the face of Saeed as a result of some injury but Saeed was himself examined by the petitioner as his witness and he had stated that there was a pimple on his face and the bleeding was from there, and as a result of a slap.

13. In the face of all this it cannot be said that it was the respondent who had been responsible for this disturbance resulting in the injury of Saeed.

14. I will, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.

H.B.T./2129/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.