Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD., ISLAMABAD VS Respondent: GHULAM MUHAMMAD
1988 P L C 584
1988 P L C 584
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD., ISLAMABAD
Versus
GHULAM MUHAMMAD
Appeal No.MN‑59 of 1987, decided on 12th May, 1987.
(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑
--‑S.2(i)‑‑"Workman"‑‑Chowkidar by rotation performing duty of Gateman doing manual work and was a "workman".
(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑Back benefits‑‑Petitioner deposing that he sometimes carried bricks but not doing such work regularly‑ Held: Since petitioner only casually got some work to make both ends meet it cannot be said that after being dismissed he remained employed thus, he was rightly allowed back benefits.
Syed Iqbal Gilani for Appellant.
Qamar uz Zaman Butt for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 27th April, 1987.
JUDGMENT
The decision dated 28‑2‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9 Multan has been challenged, whereby the respondent has been directed to be re‑instated in service with full back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that he had on 20‑2‑1985 grappled with Manzoor Hussain, Head Watchman and had misbehaved with the security officer. The only point which has been argued before me is that respondent is not a workman.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that according to the evidence, the respondent had to discharge duties of gateman only casually and otherwise his duty was to act as a watchman. There are several persons and their duties are alike. By rotation they are posted at the gate of the factory. Since it was within the duty of the respondent to act as gateman where he had to perform manual duties, there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent is not covered by the definition of workman. The appellant instead of posting some person permanently as gateman, takes duties of gateman by rotation from all the chowkidars. Since by rotation the respondent has to do manual work, it cannot be said that he is not covered by the definition of workman. According to the duty roster, for two days the respondent gives duty at the gate by rotation.
4. It has also been argued that the learned lower Court has wrongly allowed back benefits to the respondent. This is true that the respondent deposed that he sometime carries bricks but does not do this work regularly. Since he only casually gets some work to make both ends meet, it cannot be said that he after being dismissed from service remained employed. Therefore, he has been rightly allowed back benefits.
5. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
A.E.I356/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.