1984 PLP 1275 (PLC(CS))

‑‑Ss. 2 (xxviii) & 25‑A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2 (i) and S. O. 12‑Removal from service‑Order challenged deriving right from West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑Petitioner bound to prove to be covered by definition of "Workman" under Ordi nance ibid‑No evidence of clerical or manual work produced Definition of "Workman" under S. 2(xxviii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 not relevant‑Petitioner unless a "Workman" as defined in S. 2 (i) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, in circumstances, held, does not get any guaranteed right to bring grievance petition before Labour Court under S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969. Javed Aslam Malik for Appellant. Irshad Ali Mian for Respondents. Date of hearing : 23rd April, 1984. This is an appeal challenging the decision, dated 18th August, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.

2. The allegation against the appellant was that he had got illegal and fictitious possession of the building, previously used as a canteen. The only ground on which the petition has been disallowed is that the appellant is not a workman. Since the appellant challenged the order of removal from service, obviously he derives right from Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. So, he was bound to prove that he was covered by the definition of workman given in section 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordi nance, 1968 but not an iota of evidence is on the record in his favour. He did not utter a word about his duties. He examined two witnesses but they too did not say anything on the point. On the contrary R. W. 1 deposed that the duty of the appellant was supervisory and that he did not do any work with his own hands. To be covered by the definition of workman given in section 2 (i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 one has to prove that either he does clerical or manual work. Both kinds of work mentioned above are done by hands. Manual work is that which is done by hands. As the pay of the appellant was Rs. 525 only as depo sed by him, he may be covered by the definition of workman given in section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 but unless be is workman as defined in section 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 be does not get any guaranteed right to bring his grievance to the Labour Courts under section 25‑A. The appellant in the absence of evidence was rightly declared as non‑workman and his petition on this ground was rightly dismissed.

3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.