NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD ZAHEER-UD-DIN BABAR and another
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding an order of the Punjab Labour Court which allowed respondent No. 1's petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and directed his reinstatement without back benefits. The core legal question raised by the petitioner bank is whether a Grade-III Officer whose duties are allegedly of a supervisory nature and whose salary was Rs. 1,466.25 per month can be legally classified as a 'workman' under the relevant labor laws, and whether the courts below failed to consider material documents regarding his duties. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the finding that respondent No. 1 was a workman is contrary to the material on record, particularly in light of the bank's manual enumerating the duties of Grade-III officers. The key principle laid down is that the determination of workman status must be carefully evaluated against the actual nature of duties as evidenced by available record.
- Whether a Grade-III Officer of a bank performing supervisory duties can be classified as a workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when lower courts allegedly fail to consider material documents regarding the nature of an employee's duties?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
ORDER
' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 2-5-1992 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No, 5598 of 1984 against the order dated 26-11-1984 of the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 6, Rawalpindi, allowing respondent No, 1's petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the I.R.O., directing the petitioner to reinstate respondent No, 1 within three weeks without back benefits, dismissing the same. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. In support of the above petition, Kh. Muhammad Farooq, learned A.S.C. Appearing for the petitioner, has urged that since respondent No, 1 was a Grade-III Officer in the petitioner-bank, his duties were of supervisory nature and his salary was Rs,1,466.25 per month at the relevant time, he could not have been treated as a workman keeping in view the duties of Grade-III officers enumerated in the petitioner-bank's manual (Annexure '0') to the above petition. It has been further urged by him that the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Judge in Chambers failed to take into consideration the above material document.
2. We enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why no appeal was preferred against the above order of the Punjab Labour Court No,
6. His submission was that, at the relevant time, the view obtaining was that the petitioner-bank's employees were not entitled to invoke the provisions of the I.R.O. Subject to the right of respondent No, 1 to urge on the above question, we grant leave to consider, whether on the basis of the material, which was available before the Courts below, the finding that respondent No, 1 was a workman is contrary to the material on record. Leave is, accordingly, granted.