A QUESTION is usually asked by people managing industrial and commercial organisations as to why there is no one common definition of 'worker' or 'workman' under the various labour laws. Definition of this word is important as the particular enactment is applicable only to that category of employees who are covered by the definition.

There is a reason behind having different definitions under the labour laws such as the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968; Factories Act 1934; Payment of Wages Act 1936; Employees Old-age Benefits Act 1976 and the Industrial Relations Act 2008.

The intent of the lawmakers is to extend benefits of the enactment to certain class of workers who are usually classified as 'non-management employees' or the 'unionised employees'. Barring the EOB Act, all the other laws are applicable only to non-management employees.

Through an amendment in 1993, the EOB Act was made applicable to all employees in an establishment whether management or non-management, except the directors. The purpose was to generate more funds for the EOB Institution.

The law on industrial relations has been amended thrice in 1969, 2002 and 2008. There is a different definition of the word 'worker' in all these three Ordinances and Act. Definition given in IRO 1969 was 'worker' or 'workman' means any person not falling within the definition of employer who is employed (including employment as a supervisor or as an apprentice) in an establishment or industry for hire or reward either directly or through a contractor whether the terms of employment be express or implied, etc, but does not include any person

(a) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or

(b) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding Rs800 pm or performs, either because of the nature of duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of managerial nature”.

This definition implied that supervisors drawing salary of more than Rs800 pm. were not considered workmen whether or not they were performing any managerial or administrative functions. This definition was amended by the Ordinance 2002.

The wage limit of Rs800 pm had relevance in 1969 when the minimum wages of an unskilled worker was Rs140 pm, but it appeared absurd in 2002 when the minimum wages of even an unskilled worker had been increased to Rs2,500 pm.

The Ordinance 2002 had simplified the workman's definition and made the law applicable to persons other than those employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity. It was not applicable to supervisors performing duties of managerial nature besides supervising the workforce assigned to them.

In practice those duties included the sanctioning of leave, carrying out performance appraisal of their subordinate staff, etc. After all, does it appear sensible that the supervisors should also fight for improvement in the terms of their employment sitting on the negotiation table along with the union of workers whom they supervise?

The IRO 2002 had also wisely made the law inapplicable to the apprentices after the adverse experience of their inclusion in IRO 1969. The latter Ordinance had given vent to a lot of unnecessary litigation on the question whether or not the apprentices could form a union of their own.

As the name apprentice implies, they are enrolled in an industrial establishment to get two or three years' training in various trades. Their terms and conditions of training are governed by the Apprenticeship Ordinance 1962 and the rules made thereunder, which are quite comprehensive.

The Industrial Relations Act 2008 has again included both the supervisors and apprentices in the definition of worker.

Much effort is going to be put in by the participants of the tripartite labour conference being convened in Islamabad shortly to recommend amendments to the law which are acceptable to all stakeholders.

It is, therefore, suggested that the definition of 'worker' and 'workman' given in the IRO 2002 should be revived.

PARVEZ RAHIM
Karachi