1992 PLP 297 (PLC)

MAMOON QAZI, J.

The petitioner has been aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 12-4-1987 upholding the decision of the learned Labour Court dated 13-8-1985 whereby the grievance petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was employed by respondent No. 3 as Radiographer (X-Ray Technician) in December, 1981. The petitioner performed his duties as such when in July 1983 his services were terminated by respondent No. 3 without an order in writing. The petitioner then served a grievance notice on respondent No. 3 and thereafter filed a grievance petition before the learned 1st Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, claiming to be a workman. The application was resisted by respondent No. 3 according to whom the petitioner did not fall within the definition of "workman" as given in the Standing Orders Ordinance as he was not performing any manual or clerical duties. An objection was also taken in regard to the applicability of the Standing Orders Ordinance to the employees of the said respondent, as according to it, the number of workmen employed therein during the year preceding the petitioner's dismissal was less than

20. Both the grounds weighed with the learned Labour Court which dismissed the petition as not maintainable. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, which was also not pressed, and the order passed by the learned labour Court was upheld by the learned Tribunal. We have heard Mr. Salahuddin Gandapur, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, learned counsel for the respondent No.

3. After going through the petition and after hearing the learned counsel and going through the impugned decisions given by the learned Tribunals below, we find that the orders passed by the two Tribunals respectively are not open to exception. No doubt, before the learned Labour Court the petitioner appears to have produced oral evidence to the effect that the respondent No. 3 had employed more than 20 workmen preceding the year when the services of the petitioner were terminated. However, this evidence was rebutted by respondent No. 3 who produced attendance registers of employees showing that at no time the number of persons employed by the respondent No. 3 was

20. Besides that both the learned Tribunals below on the basis of evidence produced by the parties have given concurrent findings that the petitioner was not performing any manual or clerical work. Such findings appear to have been based on the evidence adduced by the parties before the learned Labour Court and we find no reason to interfere with the said findings of the learned Tribunals. Besides that we find that the petition has been filed after a delay of eight months, therefore, it miserably suffers from laches which has not been explained by the petitioner. In the result, we find no force in this petition and the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./H-308/Lb. S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.