1993 PLP 710 (PLC)

2. Briefly the facts are that Mst. Shamim Nargis, respondent, was working as Superintendent, Punjab Small Industries Carpet Centre, Liaquatpur. She was removed from service by Regional Director, Punjab Small Industries, Bahawalpur, on 11‑3‑1986. Feeling aggrieved thereby the respondent filed a suit challenging the validity of the order of removal on 16‑7‑1986. The suit was resisted and on the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:‑‑ (1) Whether the orders, dated 11‑3‑1986 and 15‑9‑1985 are illegal, without authority and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiff? OPP. (2) Whether the Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the case? OPD. (3) Whether the defendant is entitled to special cost under section 35‑A, C.P.C.? OPD (4) Relief. Both the parties led evidence to support their respective claims. Learned trial Court vide its judgment, dated 29‑6‑1989, decreed the suit holding that the respondent was not a "workman" and that the suit was maintainable. Findings on other issues were also delivered in favour of the plaintiff‑respondent. Appeal was filed by the petitioner against the decree which, as stated earlier, was dismissed on 9‑5‑1991. Hence this revision.

3. Sole objection of learned counsel in this revision is that since the plaintiff‑respondent was a "workman", therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, rather the remedy of the respondent lay before the Labour Court. It is stated that issue No. 2 on this point was also framed but the same was disposed of summarily by the trial Court and the learned appellate Court wrongly observed that the defendant petitioner did not challenge the findings on this issue which is factually incorrect. It was also contended that the written arguments filed before appellate Court by the petitioner bear testimony that finding on issue No. 2 was not conceded. In view of this objection I had sent for the original record because learned counsel failed to produce certified copy of written arguments despite various adjournments.

4. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner did not at all challenge the finding of the trial Court on issue No.

2. It is well‑settled that "workman" is such person whose duty entails physical exertion as distinguished from the mental or intellectual exertion. Of course in order to determine and ascertain if a person is workman or not, the nature of duty performed by such person is to be considered. As for the case in hand, the respondent‑employee's designation is "Superintendent" and her nature of duty is supervision. So, I would agree with the finding of the Courts below that she is not "workman" and the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try the instant suit. No other point is raised.

5. For what is 'stated above, I find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed in limine. H.B.T./P-62/L Petition dismissed.