PARAS TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Versus ABDUL HAMEED
The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 30‑9‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. On the previous date the respondent was present in person but has not turned up today, therefore, the appeal has been heard ex parte against him. The respondent was a Shift Jobber and on the allegation of misconduct he was dismissed from service. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned lower Court has wrongly held that the appellant is covered by the definition of "workman". The argument has no force. No doubt the respondent is a Shift Jobber but there is no evidence that he had supervisory duties. The respondent did not admit in cross‑examination that some workers were subordinate to him. He no doubt said that he used to record attendance of the workers but this alone is not enough to say that the respondent had powers of supervision upon the persons whose attendance he used to record. All the documents were with the appellant, and therefore, if any leave application was sanctioned or any recommendation for promotion or taking action against any worker was made by him the same could be produced in evidence. In the absence of such a documentary evidence it can be presumed that the respondent was not performing any such duties. No evidence was produced by the appellant with regard to the duties performed by the respondent. The learned Lower Court was thus justified in accepting the un-rebutted oral statement of the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited 1981 P L C 871, 1983 P L C 810 and 1984 P L C 1303 but they are not helpful because in the present case there is, as mentioned above, no evidence to show that the respondent had supervisory powers. The mere fact that the designation of the respondent was a Jobber and that his wages were in excess of Rs.800 per month are not sufficient' to ousting him from the definition of 'workman'.
3. However, the respondent has been wrongly allowed back benefits by the learned Lower Court. He nowhere urged in his statement that he remained jobless from the date of his dismissal. Back benefits are allowed to the workers as they cannot earn their livelihood for not any fault committed by them. It is, therefore; necessary for them at least to urge that they remained jobless.
4. As a result the appeal is partly accepted ex parte and modifying the impugned decision back benefits are disallowed to the respondent. Nemo for the parties.
A.E. /502/Lb.P ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal partly accepted.