Workman definition | The Supreme Court overruled the decision of the lower courts and stated that the recognition of an employee as a "worker" does not depend only on the title of his post, but on the nature of his work.
ورک مین کی قانونی تعریف کا بنیادی اصول
سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے اس فیصلے میں یہ اصول واضح کر دیا کہ کسی ملازم کو "ورکر" یا "ورک مین" قرار دینے کا دار و مدار محض اس کے عہدے کے عنوان پر نہیں ہوتا بلکہ اس بات پر ہوتا ہے کہ وہ عملاً کس نوعیت کا کام سرانجام دے رہا ہے۔
عدالت نے زور دیا کہ اصل معیار ملازم کے فرائض اور ذمہ داریوں کی نوعیت ہے، نہ کہ اس کی نامزدگی یا عہدہ۔
سپریم کورٹ کا حتمی فیصلہ
قانونی اہمیت اور عملی رہنمائی
نتیجہ
Must read judgement
2024 S C M R 360
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Ijaz ul Ahsan, Ayesha A. Malik and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ
MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED---Petitioner
Versus
RIZWAN ALI KHAN and others---Respondents
Civil Petition No. 4980 of 2021, decided on 10th November, 2023.
(Against judgment dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in W.P. No. 776 of 2021)
(a) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)---
----S. 2(xxxiii)--- 'Worker' and 'workman', status of---Burden of proof---Factors and evidentiary requirements to be considered by Courts while determining whether an employee is a workman stated.
Evidence must be produced to establish the nature of work and functions of the aggrieved claimant, particularly to show that the work is manual or clerical and not managerial or supervisory. The court has to give due consideration to the cumulative effect of the evidence in the context of the nature of work that the workman claims he was doing so as to determine if he is a workman and not rely on piecemeal evidence. For a claimant to be categorized as a workman, his designation alone is not relevant and cannot be considered conclusive evidence of his work status rather, it is the pith and substance of his duties and functions which must be manual or clerical. When understanding further the definition of 'worker' and 'workman,' mere reliance on the fact that it is routine work does not make one's functions and duties clerical or manual and is not sufficient to establish the workman status. Manual and clerical work involves physical exertion as opposed to mental or intellectual exertion. Furthermore, even routine work can involve the exercise of initiative, imagination, direction and supervision while maintaining registers, submission of reports, preparing of vouchers and statements and such jobs cannot be termed as being that of a workman simply because they are routine work.
Habib Bank Limited v. Gulzar Khan and others 2019 SCMR 946 and National Bank of Pakistan v. Anwar Shah and others 2015 SCMR 434 ref.
The judicial consensus of the Court with respect to the determination of the work status is clear such that the court must analyze the nature of the actual duties and functions of the employee to ascertain whether he falls within the ambit of the definition of worker or workman for which collective evidence must be examined to ascertain whether the duties were supervisory or managerial or whether they are manual or clerical. Therefore, in determining the work status, the overall nature of duties assigned to that person along with the functions of the job and the manner in which he performs his duties must be brought onto evidence and must be duly considered.
Abdul Razzaq v. Messrs Ihsan Sons Limited and 2 others 1992 SCMR 505 ref.
To determine whether a person is a workman is a finding of fact, routed in evidence and the person who approaches the court on the basis of an averment that he is a workman carries the initial burden of proof to establish that he is a workman. To emphasize, when dealing with the question of burden of proof in establishing the status of the workman, such burden lies on the person claiming to be a workman. It is the bounden duty of a person who approaches the Labour Court to demonstrate through evidence the nature of duties and functions, and to show that he is not working in any managerial or administrative capacity and that he is not an employer. In the absence of such evidence, a grievance petition would not be maintainable before the Labour Court for lack of jurisdiction. Moreover, this burden of proof is to be discharged by the claimant through documentary and oral evidence supporting his claim that the nature of his work is, in fact, manual or clerical. This requires the production of evidence, documentary or oral, which shows the nature of duties and the functions of the claimant pursuant to his claim that he is a workman. Even if there does not exist the power to hire or fire any person, the nature of the job as performed by the person must be evident from the holistic view of the record produced and it has to be determined through overall record whether he was employed as a workman doing manual and clerical work and whether he was discharging his functions in a managerial and supervisory role. Accordingly, it's vital for the court to consider all the evidence and to ascertain the duties and functions of the person claiming to be a workman and to ensure that the workman has discharged his burden with the required evidence.
National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Court 5, Faisalabad and 2 others 1993 SCMR 672; National Bank of Pakistan v. Anwar Shah and others 2015 SCMR 434; Shahi Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others 1993 SCMR 1370 and Dilshad Khan Lodhi v. Allied Bank of Pakistan and others 2008 SCMR 1530 ref.
(b) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)---
----S. 2(xxxiii)--- Bank employee---Whether a 'worker' and 'workman'---Duties such as issuing cheque books, checking ledgers and preparing statements of accounts are not merely manual or clerical tasks, and do not fall within the works of a workman as they involve the exercise of discretion and decision-making---Where bank employees are involved, duties and functions are documented as is (their) daily work, which should be brought before the court in evidence.
Ganga R. Madhani v. Standard Bank Ltd. and others 1985 SCMR 1511 ref.
(c) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)---
----S. 2(xxxiii)--- Bank employee executing duties of a branch manager---Not a workman---Evidence produced by the petitioner-Bank showed that the respondent-employee was not a workman; that the respondent was appointed as a bank manager at one of the branches of the petitioner-Bank---Performance evaluation report of the respondent for the relevant period showed that he was working as OG-II/bank officer and his work included supervision and guidance; he was being assessed on the basis of management skills and not on the basis of clerical skills---Respondent was involved in financial management, people management, processes and controls, customer focus and operational efficiency---List of duties assigned to the respondent showed his control of internal working, development of branch deposit, advances, marketing, KB accounts opening etc.---Simply placing reliance on the respondent not being able to hire or fire or not having a power of attorney was not sufficient evidence for the purposes of determining the status of a workman---Respondent did not establish the nature of his work or his duties and his emphasis remained on what he did not have the authority to do---Labour Court and NIRC failed to analyse the evidence before them and ignored the established principles on how to establish workman status and the High Court, thereafter, affirmed those orders without considering the law and the evidence in the case---Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, and the impugned judgments were set aside.
Muhammad Shoaib Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court (via video link, Lahore) for Petitioner.
Zubair Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.