2006 PLP 386 (SCMR)

RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.

These petitions are directed against the appellate judgments of the Sindh High Court identical in nature and involving common question of law.

2. Petitioners appear to be the employees of the Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and designated as Officers Grade-III. They were proceeded on the charge of misconduct and after holding departmental inquiries and dismissed from service by the Bank authorities on different dates. After submission of grievance petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (since repealed) on the management, petitioners filed separate applications before respective Sindh Labour Courts for the redress of their grievance and a direction for their reinstatement.

3. In C.P. No.530-K of 2004 petitioner was charge-sheeted on the ground of misappropriation of accounts; in C.P. No.601-K of 2004 petitioner was proceeded on the charge of unauthorized absence from duty for more than 10 days whereas in C.P. No.620-K of 2004 petitioner was proceeded on the ground of inefficiency and unauthorized absence in excess of 10 days.

4. The petitions were resisted by the Management on variety of grounds including the premise that the petitioners were officers of the Bank and not workmen within the meaning of term as defined in the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Both the parties adduced evidence and on assessment of evidence respective Labour Courts directed reinstatement of the petitioners. In separate appeals against the orders of reinstatement, respondents Bank succeeded with the result that the Sindh High Court set aside the judgments of the trial Court holding petitioners to be officers and their job being supervisory in nature non-suited them by dismissing their grievance petitions, hence these petitions for leave to appeal.

5. It is inter alia contended that for all intents and purposes petitioners though termed as Officers Grade-III and designated as such were actually performing manual and physical duties essentially bringing their cadre within the definition of "workmen" as defined in the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. It is urged that learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court on reappraisal of evidence wrongly concluded that indeed the petitioners were not workmen and were performing duties of supervisory nature and therefore, their grievance was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.

6. After hearing petitioner in person in C.P. No.530-K of 2004 and Mr. Suleman Habibullah, learned Advocate Supreme Court in the connected civil petitions and examining the record we are inclined to grant leave to consider inter alia whether on the basis of the material available on record petitioners could be non-suited for being not workmen within the meaning of the term more particularly when Management itself had resorted to disciplinary enquiry against them thereby treating them as workmen. Order accordingly.

7. Pending the decision of these appeals operation of the respective judgments of the High Court shall remain suspended. These appeals may be made ready on the available record and on additional documents that may be filed by the parties at an early date. S.A.K./M-343/SC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.