Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. BR‑103 of 1978/Punjab, decided on 25th October 1978.

-----S.25‑A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 2(i) "Workman"‑Burden of proof‑Appellant a Bank Manager, nowhere stating himself to be a workman‑Appellant on other hand describing himself as an officer of Grade III in his grievance notice‑Burden of proof‑Lay on appellant to establish his being a workman and entitled to file petition under S. 25‑A of Ordinance XXIIII of 1969 Appellant not even caring to enumerate duties performed by him Petition under S. 25‑A, in circumstances, held, not competent.

S. Hazoor Shah v. Punjab Labour‑Court No. 2 and another Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 216 of 1974 ref.

Syed Noor Ahmad for Appellant.

S. Iqbal Habib, Legal Officer for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 7th August 1978.

This is an appeal against the decision dated 26‑12‑1977 of Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Multan.

2. Syed Zia Ali, appellant was employed as an Officer Grade‑III. United Bank Limited, Zonal Officer, Bahawalpur on 15‑8‑1973. On 25‑2‑1973 vide Petition Order Exh. R. 1, the appellant, who was Manager of Chak No. 56 D. B. (Yazman) Branch, was transferred and posted as Man ager of Adamwaha Branch. Before that he had worked as Manager Incharge of the Bank Branch at Rajapur village. On 10‑5‑1977 at 12.00 noon Mr. Naseer A. Hamdani, Controller of the Zonal Officer, accompanied by Mr. Naserullah. Khan, A. C. O., made a surprise visit to Branch of which the appellant at that time was the Manager and found that the Branch had closed its cash at 11‑30 a. m. after the closure of the business hours and that there was a shortage of Rs. 17,500. The appellant admitted that there was a shortage and his admission was reduced into writing. It was further revealed that the shortage bad taken place on 26‑0‑1977 and was continuing since then. Accordingly, a charge of misappropriation was levelled against him vide charge‑sheet Exh. P‑1 dated 20‑6‑1977. The appellant submitted 1 is reply dated 22‑6‑1977 denying the charges. He, however, admitted that he had advanced the aforementioned amount to one Mian Majid, who had a current account No. 23 at that Branch with a commitment to return money on the next day. That commitment was never honoured. Thereafter, the services of the appellant were terminated on 6‑8‑1977 vide letter Exh. P‑2 issued by the Second Vice‑President of the Bank.

3. The appellant, after serving a grievance notice on 28‑8‑1977, the photostat copy of which is Exh. P‑3, filed a petition under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 on 28‑9‑1977 before the Labour Court, which dismissed the same on the ground that the appellant was not a workman as defined under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.

4. Aggrieved by the above decision, Syed Zia Ali, appellant has preferred this appeal.

5. Now the point for determination is as to whether the appellant is a workman as defined under Standing Order 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, which reads as under :‑

"'Workman' means any person employed in any industrial or commercial establishment to do any skilled or unskilled work, manual or clerical work for hire or reward."

6. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has been working as Manager in Grade‑III. It has nowhere been stated by him that he was a workman. Even in his petition under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the grievance notice he did not mention that he was a workman. In the grievance notice he described himself as an Officer Grade‑III and the same is the case in the petition. Since he had approached the Labour Court the burden of proof lay upon him to establish that he was a workman and that he was entitled to file a petition under section 25‑A. He even did not care to enumerate the duties which he bad been performing.

7. In view of the above, his petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not competent. I am fortified in this view by an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case 'S. Hazoor Shah v. Punjab Labour Court No. 2 and another (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 216 of 1974) wherein it was observed :‑------

"It appears to us that the onus was certainly upon the petitioner to prove that he was a workman, but due to the fact that he did not lead any evidence to prove that fact, his application before the Junior Labour Court was liable to fail."

8. I, accordingly, uphold the decision of the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.