PARKE-DAIS & COMPANY LIMITED, KARACHI Versus JAMIL JANAT ALI
DECISION
The circumstances forming the background of this appeal, in short, are as follows:‑
2. The respondent was appointed as a Clerk in August, 1981 and came to be promoted as a Junior Local Purchase Officer in 1985.
3. On 20‑7‑1989 he was served with a `show‑cause notice' as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him, for the losses of about Rs.1,19,415 suffered by the appellants towards the excessive payment made for the water tankers within a period of about four months. The reply was submitted on the 23rd of July, 1989. On 6th of August, 1989 the services of the respondent came to be terminated with immediate effect and he was informed that he could collect one month's salary in lieu of the notice and other dues, if any, any time as he found convenient.
4. The respondent after settling the legal preliminaries filed the grievance application under section 25‑A of I.R.O., before the Labour Court, challenging the termination of his services. The appellants in their Reply Statement denied the allegation made against them and maintained that the application was liable to be dismissed, also on the ground that the respondent was an officer with supervisory jurisdiction and the Labour court had no jurisdiction.
5. The respondent was the only witness on his behalf and the appellant examined one Mohammad Anwar Khan, Materials Manager of the Company. The Labour Court found that the respondent was a `workman' within the meaning of Order 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, and the termination order was defective as it did not assign any reason for the same.
6. The foremost question to determine would be about the status of the respondent, and Mr. A. Hafiz, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon Syed Matloob Hassan v: Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Ltd. 1982 PLC 275, General Manager, Hotel Intercontinental and others v. Bashir A. Malik PLD 1986 SC 103, Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Muhammad Abdul Ghani PLD 1975 Kar. 342, Ganga R. Madhani v. Standard Bank Limited and another 1985 PLC (Supreme Court) 1511, Bashir Ahmed Zia v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and another 1982 SCMR 407.
7. Mr. Ali Amjad, appearing for the respondent, referred to Central Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal add another 1985 PLC 511 and some other authorities, which need not be enumerated.
8. The pith and substance of the citations is that it is not the designation, or the salary which is the decisive factor in determining whether a petitioner is a workman or not Essentially it is the nature of .his duty. If the predominant and essential nature of his duties are clerical 'or manual, skilled or unskilled, he will be a workman within the meaning of "workman" as defined under Standing Orders Ordinance. We have, therefore, to look to that aspect of the matter to reach a proper conclusion.
9. The job description' of the respondent admittedly is as follows:‑
Part‑I
"Title: Junior Local Purchase Officer
Company: Parke Davis and Company Ltd.
Deptt: Materials Department Country: Pakistani
Reports to: Assistant Manager, Local Purchase.
Date: April, 1986.
Part ‑ 11
Broad Functions:
"To arrange materials from Local Market as per requisitions received
Part ‑ III
Municipal Responsibilities
1. Attention to minor factory requirements.
2. Preparation of Purchase Orders in consultation with Assistant Manager Local Purchase.
3. Maintenance of Price Card, Purchase Orders, CCF Receiving Reports, Follow up Records and other related records.
4. Timely procurement of local materials.
5. Purchase and Printing of Stationery.
6. Follow up with Accounts for timely payment to vendors to avoid disturbance in future supplies.
7. Intimation of short/excess receipt and rejection of consignment to the vendors.
8. Replacement of rejected or returnable goods.
9. Persuade vendors for discount/credit facilities and towards other favourable terms.
10. Co‑ordination of all purchasing activities and follow up of local supplies.
11. Location of new and competitive sources,
12. Submission of information/statements to Government authorities as regard to the local purchases.
13. Visit to Local Market as acid when required for normal purchases.
14. To complete formalities for the procurement of excisable articles viz. Alcohol Methanal and spirit etc.
15. Renewal of Licences Permits viz. Poison Licence, Permission of Storage of Solvent, Naukernama, Power of Attorney etc.
16. Disposal of Surplus/Obsolete Materials Locally in consultation with Assistant Manager Local Purchase.
17. Close Watch of the Price Trend in the Local Market.
18. Submission of statements/reports etc. as per the Purchase Procedure.
19. Full Participation in C.I.P.
20. To attend any work that may be assigned by the Assistant Manager Local Purchase.
21. Selection/Call for Proper and Desired number of competitive Bids and seek approval as specified in Local Purchase Procedure.
22. Allocation of Order/Quantity between Vendors.
23. Follow up till orders are completed satisfactorily.
24. Co‑ordination with Quality Control Department for the analysis of the samples of the Local Purchase Materials received from vendors.
25. Cost Reduction in Raw/Packing Materials.
Part IV
Principal Relationship
Contacts
Inside: All Departments
Outside: Excise Departments, Vendors etc.
Supervision:
1. "
10. Even Muhammad Anwar Khan, the witness of the appellant, in his affidavit, admitted that the "Clerical and/or filing work related to the applicant's job as the Local Purchase Officer, did not extend to more than an hour or so per day". It appears from his cross‑examination, that Wasim Hassan, who is said to be the `typist' with the respondent was attached to the Inventory Department. Be that as it may, the duties detailed above do not leave any doubt that the predominant and the essential nature of the work was clerical, notwithstanding the designation he was given. The contention that he had resigned from the membership of the Union the very day he was promoted as Junior Purchase Officer is neither here nor there. He has given an explanation of sorts that it was for personal reason. Mr. Ali Amjad also made out that the pay of Rs.2,600 odd that he was drawing was lower to the pay of even an Inventory Clerk by the name of Rahat Pervaiz, who was getting Rs.3,054 per month. I am satisfied, as the Labour Court was, that the respondent was a workman and therefore, he could invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.
11. It is true that the services of a permanent workman can be terminated by an employer after paying his one month's wages and other dues but under Standing Order 12(3) the employer has to explicitly state the reason for the 13 action taken. In default, the order is liable to be quashed. There are a number of authorities to that effect. Demonstrably there are no reasons of any sort to the termination. On the showing of the appellants themselves the post has not been abolished and Mr. Ali Amjad, learned counsel for the respondent, has some justification in saying that it was a colourable exercise of power and nothing more, as they could see that the charges levelled against the respondent are totally untenable.
12. As the matters stand the appeal is devoid of all merit. I would, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
A.A./2029/LB.S Appeal dismissed.