1978 PLP 360 (PLC)

Nemo for Respondent Date of hearing: 24th August 1977. DECISION This appeal has been filed against the order of Labour Court dismissing the application made under section 25‑A of

1. R. O., 1969. The appellant was appointed as an Officer Grade III by the United Bank Ltd, (respondent No. 1) on 25th March 1974 and was confirmed with effect from 25th March, 11775. The appellant claimed that although he was desig nated as officer Grade III yet to all intents and purposes he was a workman as defined in section 2 of I. R. O., 1969. He did not possess any power of appointment or dismissal and his wages did not exceed R9.

870. On 26th March 1976 he was dismissed from service on account of some misconduct without any Charge Sheet enquiry or Show Cause Notice. He therefore, served a grievence notice upon the respondent and approached the Labour Court under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 for re-instatement with full back benefits. The application was resisted and it was inter alia pleaded that the appel lant was not a workman within the meaning of section 2 of

1. R. O. and, therefore, the application under section 25‑A of

1. R. O. was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the appellant was performing his duties as Officer Grade III in the Bank. For that purpose he was given Power of Attorney, which clearly indicated that he was performing air duties as a Officer and riot a workman of arcs given all the benefits and privilege as admissible to an officer. The allegation of misconduct against him is this that he bad forged the Signature of Prime Minister of Pakistan on his application dated, 18‑1‑76 for promotion to Grade

1. As a result of this he was promoted by the President of the Bank vide order dated 21‑1s a. Subsequently, it was discovered that he had forged the signature of the Prime Minister. Consequently he was dismissed from service on 26-3-76. The learned Presiding Officer fixed the case for disposal of the preliminary legal objection as to whether the appellant was a workman, on the basis of the material on record, became to the conclusion that the appellant was not a workman within the meaning of section 2 of I. R. O., 1969 and, therefore, his application was not maintainable. Having come to this conclusion he dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present appeal bad been filed. On perusal of record anal proceedings and hearing the arguments of the learned Representative for the appellant while none appeared on behalf of the respondents, I am of the view that the conclusion reached by the learned Presiding Officer is not open to any exception. Admittedly, the appellant was working as officer and was also promoted on the basis of the endorsement purported to have been made by the Prime Minister of Pakistan on his application. The power of attorney has also been produced. On other hand, the appellant merely stated in his application and in affidavit that although he was appointed as an Officer, he was a workman. He led no evidence. He even did not care to describe the duties, which he was performing in order to support his contention that he was a workman. The burden of proof lay upon him and he failed to discharge it. His bard word without the details in respect of duties can't be accepted. When all this was pointed out to the learned Representative for the appellant, be made grievance that, no opportunity was allowed to the appellant to lead evidence. I am unable to find any force in this contention as the affidavit filed by him itself shows that it was filed as evidence. It is, there fore, clear that he relied mainly upon his own affidavit although it was clearly known that the matter was fixed for preliminary objections regarding his status as workman yet, at no time, he expressed any desire to lead any other evidence or make any further statement to supplement the affidavit which was originally filed. The other party had also filed counter‑affidavit yet no further affidavit was filed by the appellant to counter‑act the allegations made in the counter‑affidavit. Thus the grievance of the Representative for the appellant is not Justified and unwarranted. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.