1981 PLP 72 (PLC)

Ch. Anwar Ali for Petitioner. Iqbal Habib for Respondent. Briefly stated, the case is that petitioner Daood‑ul‑Hassan joined the services of the respondent United Bank Limited on 26‑11‑1973 and was promoted in Grade‑I in June 1974. He was designated as Manager and was posted at the Fraid Gate Branch of the respondent Bank at Bahawalpur. He was given certificates of merit in appreciation of his services. Some persons made false reports against him. He was transferred to Gujrat and was also reduced in rank. The petitioner came to know that he was going to be dismissed from service without independent inquiries into the allegations of misconduct against him. He served a grievance notice on the respondent but without any effect. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 praying therein that the action by the respondent to dismiss him from service be declared as illegal and without any effect. He also prayed that the respondent be directed to keep in abeyance the order of termination of services passed against him.

2. The petition has been resisted. It has been contended in the written reply that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner was not employed with the respondent as a workman. The petition has also been resisted on merits. It has been prayed that the petition be dismissed.

3. The preliminary objection taken by the respondent to the effect that the petitioner is not a workman has to be decided first. Every case has to be decided on its own merits and as per evidence produced by the parties. P. W. 1 petitioner Daood‑ul‑Hassan Qureshi has stated that he had no duty at Gujrat and that he was not authorised to sign any letter. He has further stated that he used to do that work only which was assigned to him verbally. In rebuttal, P. W. 2 Mr. Muhammad Saleem, Personnel Manager, United Bank Limited, Gujrat Zone, has stated that the petitioner was Group Incharge when he was working in Gujrat. He has further stated that Group Incharge has under him some branches.

4. It has transpired from the above‑mentioned evidence that the peti tioner was Group Incharge when he was working in Gujrat and that some branches were under him. As such. I have arrived at the conclusion that the nature of the duties of the petitioner were such that he cannot be termed as a workman.

5. As the petitioner is not a workman, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide this petition.

6. For the reasons stated above, I hold that this Court has not the jurisdi ction to entertain and decide this petition. The petition be returned to the petitioner for presentation of the same in a Court of competent jurisdiction. Petition rejected.