1996PLC 712 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Labour Court re instating Bank employee‑‑‑Bank's Constitutional petition against order of Labour Court was dismissed‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Bank's contention was that Bank employee was Grade‑III Officer, his duties were of supervisory nature and his salary was more than that of a workman, therefore, Labour Court had no jurisdiction to order re‑ instatement of such employee‑‑‑Bank had not invoked jurisdiction of Labour Appellate Tribunal‑‑‑Subject to the right of respondent (employee) to urge on the question of non‑availing of opportunity of appeal by the Bank, leave to appeal was granted to consider, whether on the basis of material, which was available before Courts below, finding that respondent was a workman was contrary to material on record. Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th January, 1995. . AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 2‑5‑1992 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 5598 of 1984 against the order dated 26‑11‑1984 of the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, allowing respondent No. 1's petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the I.R.O., directing the petitioner to reinstate respondent No. 1 within three weeks without back .benefits, dismissing the same. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.

2. In support of the above petition, Kh. Muhammad Farooq, learned A.S.C. appearing for the petitioner, has urged that since respondent No. 1 was a Grade‑III Officer in the petitioner‑bank, his duties were of supervisory nature and his salary was Rs.1,466.25 per month at the relevant time he could not have been treated as a workman keeping in view the duties of Grade‑III officers enumerated in the petitioner‑bank's manual (Annexure 'O') to the above petition. It has been further urged by him that the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Judge in Chambers failed to take into consideration the above material document.

3. We enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why, no appeal was preferred against the above order of the Punjab Labour Court No.

6. His submission was that, at the relevant time, the view obtaining was that the petitioner‑bank's employees were not entitled to invoke the provisions of the I.R.O. subject to the right of respondent No. 1 to urge on the above question, we grant leave to consider, whether on the basis of the material, which was available before the Courts below, the finding that respondent No. 1 was a workman is contrary to the material on record. Leave is, accordingly, granted. A.A./N.423/S Leave granted.