MUSLIM COMMERCLAL BANK LIMITED through President Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD MEHMOOD

HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J .--- This labour appeal is filed by the Muslim Commercial Bank, Limited contending that respondent could not invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Court No.V, Sargodha being not covered under the definition of workman. As the respondent was not a workman so the Punjab Labour Court could not assume and exercise jurisdiction culminating the impugned judgment a nullity in the eye of law and as such seeks interference of this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of alleged misconduct the respondent was a Manager of Kot Momin Branch, M.C.B., which is endorsed in paras.9 and 14 of the impugned judgment whereas under section 2(xxx) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 an employee who holds a managerial and administerial post is excluded from the definition of workman.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and contends that the respondent was performing different duties like cashier, deskman and others, so the contention of the appellants' counsel cannot hold the filed.

4. Arguments heard; available record perused.

5. Without going into the merits and demerits of the case, which revolves around the respondent's dismissal from service on account of some serious allegations, I shall confine to the point of jurisdiction only. So far the provisions of section 2(xxx) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 are concerned those are reproduced as follows:

"Worker" and "Workman" means any and all persons not falling within the definition of employer who is employed in an establishment or industry for remuneration or reward either directly or through a, contractor, whether the terms of employment express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Ordinance in relation to an industrial dispute includes a person who has been dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid off or otherwise removed from employment in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge, retrenchment, lay-off or removal has led to that dispute but does not include any person who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity."

6. The plain reading of the said provisions do not require any further discussion, however, in support of the said provision of law, reliance can be placed safely on a case reported as Dilshad Khan Lodhi v. Allied Bank of Pakistan 2007 PLC 41, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan held that, "Employee of Bank being an Officer Grade-II heading a department of Bank independently and supervising work of five persons had no power of hire and fire---nature and duties performed by such employee primarily appearing to be of managerial and supervisory nature---such employee would fall beyond the ambit and purview of the term "workman"."

7. As the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan is binding in terms of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 hence this Court cannot go beyond that.

8. Admittedly the respondent at the time of commission of alleged misconduct was serving as Manager hence the learned Labour could not assume and exercise its jurisdiction.

Resultantly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is declared without jurisdiction and is set aside. However the respondent is at liberty to avail remedy before an appropriate forum, which is available under the law.

The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

H.B.T./M-211/L Appeal allowed.