Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 3203 of 1985, decided on 17th March, 1986.

‑‑Art. 9‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 2(i), 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Writ petition‑‑Maintainability‑‑Decision of competent authority based upon evidence‑‑Not open to challenge in writ petition even if erroneous‑‑Labour Appellate Tribunal's decision that petitioner employee was not a workman based upon material on record relating to nature of duties‑‑Decision challenged by way of writ petition‑‑Objection as to competence of writ petition, in circumstances, upheld, by High Court.

Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Petitioner.

Tariq Hassan for Respondent No. 3.

Date of hearing: 17th March, 1986.

‑‑Muhammad Iftikhar Ahmad, Purchase Supervisor working with respondent No. 3 was dismissed from service on 6‑2‑1984 on grounds of misconduct. He brought an application before the Labour Court, which directed his re‑instatement with back benefits on 5‑1‑1985. In appeal the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal vide its judgment, dated 23‑7‑1985 has set aside the orders of the Labour Court and has dismissed the grievance petition of Muhammad Iftikhar Ahmad on the ground that he was not a workman and, therefore, could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. He has challenged the orders of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in a writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the various duties performed by the petitioner have been separated by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal without any justification. It is specifically urged that the preparation of comparative statement has been treated to be ancillary to the job of collection of quotation for the purpose of purchase. According to the petitioner the preparation of comparative statement was equally important and cannot be treated as ancillary to the job of collection of quotations. It is also urged on behalf of the petitioner that the title of‑ the post held by the petitioner is not enough to hold that he was a Supervisor, as, the nature of his duties were manual and clerical.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has stated that the petitioner on his own showing is performing duties, which cannot be termed as manual or clerical. He has referred to a confidential memorandum written by the petitioner on 6th April, 1983. This was exhibited as R‑l5 before the Labour Court. In this memorandum he has requested for additional help and for doing so he has listed the duties assigned to him. The long list includes among other things the scrutiny of goods purchased and also negotiations with the parties about the rates of the goods to be purchased. This work cannot be termed as clerical or manual. The orders of the Tribunal that the petitioner was not a workman are, therefore, based on evidence showing the duties actually performed by the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised an important question regarding the competence of the writ petition. There is merit in the submission. The learned Appellate Tribunal has based his decision after considering the evidence of the parties. Even an erroneous decision by the competent authority is not open to challenge in a writ petition. In the present case, however, as observed above, the decision is not erroneous as there was sufficient material before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a workman.

5. In view of the‑ above considerations we find no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

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.