2012 PLP 743 (SCMR)

SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BUKHARI, J.

This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18-11-2008 passed by learned Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Labour Appeal No.393 of 2005 brought by petitioners was dismissed.

2. Relevant facts for the disposal of the case are that Muhammad Shafaqat Sharif, respondent was serving with petitioners as Production Supervisor. He was appointed on 15-11-1995 and remained in service till 7-10-2004. He was removed from service on 7-10-2004. The respondent served grievance notice and filed grievance petition before Labour Court which was accepted vide judgment dated 24-9-2005. The petitioners filed appeal thereagainst which was dismissed vide impugned judgment. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. As mentioned above, respondent was serving as Production Supervisor with petitioners and he was removed from service vide order dated 7-10-2004. The order dated 7-10-2004 (Exp.1) shows that the post of respondent was abolished and he was removed from service. Admittedly the respondent had been serving with petitioners for about 10 years but he was removed from service without any show cause notice or inquiry. The case of petitioners is that Labour Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case and that respondent was not a workman, therefore, impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioners with care and find that contentions raised by learned counsel have no force. The evidence on record shows that respondent was a worker and Labour Court had jurisdiction to hear the case. The judgment dated 18-11-2008 shows that learned High Court has decided the appeal brought by petitioners after appraisal of entire material available on record. Para No. 4 of the said judgment reads as under:-- "The tenor of the impugned order reflects that the questions raised in the present appeal were also raised before the Labour Court. It is clear from the record that the respondent was never charge sheeted nor any inquiry was conducted against him, therefore, he was not provided sufficient right to defend himself. The respondent had categorically stated in his grievance petition that he was performing functions as a process production supervisor, this plea was not controverted, he also affirmed the same in his statement as P.W.1 pleading specifically that he performed his functions and duty manually, there is no deep cross-examination on the same. The appellant witnesses R.W.1 and R.W.2 did appear before the Labour Court but could not controvert the claim of the respondent emphatically. The documentary evidence tendered by the parties especially Exhs.R1, R3, R9 and R11 to R17 were considered by the Labour Court and disregarded in view of the conflicting statement of R.W.1 who conceded in cross-examination that they were mere token of final sanction of leave. The definition of workman as interpreted in PLD 1999 SC 231 clearly holds that the word workman in the statute is not dependent upon his designation but on the nature of his duty. In view of clear and categorical statement of the respondent in this context and no emphatic denial by the appellants, the same clearly means that the respondent is a workman. And therefore, jurisdiction was correctly exercised by the Labour Court. It also is interesting to note that the impugned order of termination does not give any reasoning therefore, it does not fulfil the legal parameters as set down by law, there is sufficient material on record to hold that persons junior to the respondent are still holding their position, therefore, the stance of the appellant that this position has been abolished stands negated from the record". It is a well reasoned judgment. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment so as to warrant interference by this Court. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence. So we find that this petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./Q-2/SC Leave refused.