ABDUL RASHID SHAIKH Versus BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL (OVERSEAS) LTD., KARACHI

DECISION

The circumstances in which this appeal against the dismissal of the petition under section 25‑A, IRO has arisen, in brief are as follows: ‑‑

2. The petitioner in his petition averred that he was employed as a "permanent workman" and nothing more. However, it appears from the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent, that he was an officer in the Regional Credit Department drawing a salary of Rs.15,850 per month.

3. On 14‑5‑1990 his services came to be terminated as the same were no longer required by the Bank. Thereupon he had sent a grievance notice on the 4th of August, 1990 and as no satisfaction could be accorded, he had filed a petition before the Labour Court. It appears that initially the petitioner had accepted the amounts due in his favour from the Bank, alongwith the Provident Fund, but on second thought had returned the same through a Cheque. For the purposes of the case, nothing turns on that.

4. The respondent in their written objection maintained that the petitioner was performing supervisory work and was also given Car Allowance. Entertainment Allowance, Leave Fair Assistance, Telephone Bill Imbursement, Servant Salary alongwith Furniture at his residence. It went on to deny that he was a workman. The other contentions also came to be denied.

5. The petitioner in support of his case examined himself while Waheed Usman Sakrani the Personnel Manager of the respondent Bank and one Muhammad Ishaq were examined on behalf of the respondent.

6. The learned Labour Court dismissed the petition on the short ground that the petitioner was not a workman and therefore the petition did not lie.

7. The petitioner in his evidence at the Labour Court had described his duties which had been detailed per statement Annexure `A' filed with the petition. It was said therein that he was required to perform clerical duties as below: ‑

"(a) to carry out the orders of the Department Incharge;

(b) to submit cases pertaining to the Credit Control to the Department Incharge for his‑ orders;

(c) to prepare draft letters for the approval of Departmental Head;

(d) to maintain correspondence Files;"

8. However in his cross‑examination he admitted that the Annexure which had been filed by him in regard to his duties had neither been issued by the Department nor it bore the signature of any Officer of the Bank. He also had to concede that he could not produce any documentary evidence, to show that he was performing clerical or manual duties in the Bank. He had also to own that he used to recommend the leave application of the typists, working under him and a number of these applications were brought on record.

9. On his own showing at the time of the termination of his service his salary was Rs. 15,850 per month and he was also getting Car Allowance, Entertainment Allowance and Servant Allowance apart from Air‑Conditioner, Furniture and Telephone at his residence. He had also requested that a Driver be given to him, but that was refused.

10. The job description has been provided by Waheed Usman Sakrani the Personnel Manager and the same is as under: ‑‑

"(a) Scrutiny of Credit Line proposals.

(b) Presentation of the Credit Line proposals in the Credit Committee.

(c) Recommendation of Annual Increment and leave applications of his subordinate staff.

(d) Supervision and checking of work done by his subordinates.

(e) Smooth and proper functioning of Regional Credit Department.

(f) To distribute, control and supervise the work of the Regional Credit Department Staff.

(g) To suggest ways and means to the management for smooth, proper and better functioning of the Regional Credit Department.

(h) To maintain punctuality and regularity in attendance within the Regional Credit Department of the staff working under his control and supervision.

(i) That the applicant was personally responsible with regard to the proper and efficient discharge of duties of the employees working under him."

11. He has also provided detail of various loans which had been granted to him by the Bank for the construction of a house and the purchase of a car. Muhammad Ishaq another witness has given details about the staff working under him.

12. The appellant was rather mearly mouthed about his status and he in a very self‑efficing posture contended to describe himself as a workman. He had also not chosen to place even his appointment letter which could have thrown some light on the nature of his job. However, the record unmistakeably makes out that he was a Senior Officer drawing a pay of Rs.15,850. He had also to admit that he could not produce any documentary record to substantiate that he was working in a clerical position. The precious little that he has talked about himself in the statement can hardly pass muster. The burden was on him, and it cannot be said that he even tried to discharge the same. As against this the scrutiny of his duties as put on the record by Waheed Usman Sakrani clearly indicates that his work did not involve any work of clerical or manual nature, but required application of mind and supervision of work done by others. In this view of the matter looking to the pronouncements in National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others (1993 PLC 221) and Shahi Bottlers v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others (1993 SCMR 1370), he cannot be said to be a workman.

13. It is the case of the respondent that he was Incharge of his Department which came to be disputed. However, even if we assume that lack of directional and controlling powers, the supervisory nature of his duties will come in his way, see General Manager, Hotel Intercontinental, Lahore and another v. Bashir A. Malik and others (PLD 1986 SC 103).

14. In this view of the matter, I will uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.

H.B.T./2220/Lb.S

Appeal dismissed.