Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition-No. D-363 of 1983, decided on 5th May, 1983.

---Ss. 2 (xxviii), 25-A & 38 (3) and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2 (i)-Accounts Officer appointed in managerial cadre assigned duties neither manual nor clerical-Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal after assessment of evidence and examination of documents on record coming to conclusion that such Accounts Officer was not a workman hence not entitled to grievance petition before Labour Court ________Concurrent findings of fact arrived at by Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal held cannot be disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction unless findings not based on any evidence or certain material excluded from consideration____ No such point established Fact that on appreciation of evidence it was possible to take different view from that taken by Appellate Tribunal in circumstances, held, will not render impugned order illegal or passed without lawful authority_____ Interference, in circumstance refused by High Constitutional jurisdiction___ ___Provisional Constitution Order ( 1 of 1981) Art. 9.

-The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Labour Court and the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, whereby his application under section 25-A, I. R. O. has been dismissed. The peti tioner was employed on probation by respondent No. 3 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1,100. He was appointed to work in any shift and to do any duty assigned to him. The petitioner joined duty on 4th March, 1981 and was confirmed by letter, dated 17th October, 1981 in the management Grade I as Accounts Officer w.e.f. 5th September, 1981. His basic salary was fixed at Rs. 850 p. m. excluding allowances. One of the conditions was that his service was liable to be terminated on one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. On 12th December, 1981 the petitioner's service was terminated with immediate effect and he was asked to collect his dues. The petitioner served a notice on respondent No. 3 and dissatisfied with the reply, he filed a. grievance petition before the learned 3rd Labour Court. After examining te documentary and oral evidence the learned Labour Court held that the petitioner was appointed in a managerial cadre and the nature of duties performed by him were neither manual, nor clerical, and therefore, he was not a workman. The petitioner then filed appeal, which was dismissed by the impugned order. The learned Labour Tribunal has considered all the points raised by the petitioner, assessed the evidence, examined the documents and has finally confirmed the finding of the learned Labour Court. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner's duty was not supervisory and the petitioner in fact by virtue of his duties fell within the category of workers. This contention entirely depends upon appreciation and assess ment of evidence that has been produced by the parties. After taking into consideration all the facts brought on record both the Courts have come to conclusion that the petitioner was not a workman, In this regard the learned Labour Tribunal has taken note of certain salient facts namely, the manner in which the letter of appointment was issued, the fact that the petitioner used to supervise the clerks and assistants under him, the wages and the scale in which he was placed, the petitioner's own conduct that he always wrote letters to respondent No. 3 describing himself as Accounts Officer. The learned Tribunal has discussed the evidence at length and has come to the conclusion which is against the petitioner- These findings of facts cannot be disturbed unless the petitioner establish that they are not based on any evidence, or certain material evidence ha" been excluded from consideration. Such points could not be established by the petitioner. The fact that on appreciation of evidence it is possible to take a different view from what the learned Tribunal has taken will not render the impugned order illegal or passed without lawful authority. The order of the learned Labour Tribunal does not require any interference and the petition dismissed in limine.

A. E. Petition 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.