West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 Section 2 (i) and Section O12 (3) Worker foreman of the shoe company are basically to do no manual work, complained against dismissal of employees as employees. The application, properly held, was dismissed by the Labor Court Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Sections 25 A & 38
1983 P L C 365
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab
]
Before Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
KARAMAT ALI MALIK
Versus
BATA SHOE COMPANY Appeal No. LHR‑145 of 1981, decided on 19th December, 1982.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) -------
‑‑‑‑‑ S. 2(i) & S. O. 12(3)‑" Workman"‑‑Foreman of a Shoe Com pany‑‑Mainly not to do any manual work‑Not a workman‑‑Griev ance petition against dismissal from service, held, rightly dismissed by Labour Court ‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38.
1971 P L C 1 rel.
Muhammad Akram for Appellant.
M. S. Bokhari for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 14th December, 1982.
JUDGMENT This appeal emanates from the decision dated 14th December, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, where by the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed on the ground that he was not covered by the definition of work man. The appellant was a Foreman. The allegation against him for which he was dismissed from service was that he had refused to work in the night shift. The plea of the appellant was that since he had worked in the day shift, he would not work in the night shift. Duty roster P‑9 was produced relying upon which the learned lower Court held that the appellant was not covered by the definition of workman. The Duty Roster has been reproduced by the learned lower Court in his judgment and the same may not be repeated here. The duties given in P‑9 clearly show that the main duty of the appellant were not to do any manual work. In 1971 P L C a Foreman of Bata Shoe Company has been held to be not a workman'. In view of the duties given in P‑9 and the authority mention ed above, the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to advance any effective arguments to show that the appellant is covered by the defini tion of workman'.
As a result of the observations made above I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.
Appeal dismissed.
