1987 PLP 533 (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Ishaq Abbasi for Appellant. A. Ghani Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th December, 1986. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 21‑2‑1985, passed by the Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, who had dismissed the petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.

2. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that he was initially appointed by the respondent Mills as Assistant Jobber and thereafter was promoted as a Jobber in 1979. As, there was some dispute over the payment of bonus to him for the year 1981‑82, therefore, he was allegedly gate‑stopped on 23‑6‑1982 and when he protested against this, he was verbally informed by the respondent Mills that his services had been terminated. The appellant then sent a grievance notice on 14‑9‑1982 and subsequently on 13‑10‑1982, he filed his grievance petition before the Labour Court mainly on the ground that his lock‑out/termination was in violation of the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) as he was neither served with any termination order nor he was charge‑sheeted.

3. The respondent Mills resisted the petition and questioned the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the appellant being a Jobber was not a workman and was getting a monthly salary of Rs.1,150, therefore, the question of payment of bonus to him did not arise. It was further a case of the respondent Mills that the appellant, alongwith other workers of the mills had resorted to an illegal strike on 22‑6‑1982 at 12‑30 p.m.; which was continued for fifteen days, thereby the appellant had created Law and Order situation in the Mills, therefore, he was issued a show‑cause notice on 26‑6‑1982 by registered post, and no reply to this show‑cause notice was submitted by the appellant. Further, the respondent Mills had submitted that, however, the appellant had never reported for his normal duties and it was incorrect to allege that his services were terminated by the respondent Mills, but, in fact he had been wilfully absconding from his duties. The respondent Mills, however, offered that the appellant could join his duties, if he so desired.

4. Both the parties filed their affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant holding that if the appellant, so desires, could join his duties, of course subject to the right of the respondent Mills to hold enquiry for his unauthorised absence etc. and thus, it was for him to avail this opportunity, hence, this appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ishaq Abbasi, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A. Ghani Khan, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent Mills. There is an admitted position by the appellant himself that he was not only employed as a Jobber, but, he was also drawing more than Rs.1,000 per month and that he was not supposed to do skilled or unskilled manual or clerical job and nor he was doing any work by his own hands as in fact, he was supervising the whole department during the duty hours. Mr. A. Ghani Khan, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent Mills has referred me to a number of authorities in support of his contention that neither the designation of the appellant nor admitted nature of his duties, being performed, could entitle the appellant to claim himself as a 'workman' or to maintain his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969. A The relevant cases are reported in 1981 P L C 871, 1982 P L C 61 and 1984 P L C 181; 1984 P L C 1105, 1114; P L D 1978 Kar. 649; 1981 PLC. 871 and 1980 P L C

644. The observation in these authorities are very well applicable to the present case. It was the duty of the appellant to seriously contest the objection raised by the respondent Mills and to lead positive evidence to show that he was supposed to do skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical job in order to bring him within the category of a 'workman', which he miserably failed to do so. I. therefore, hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly held that in view of the dictum laid down in the said authorities, the appellant would be incompetent to bring his grievance petition before it.

6. Reverting to the merits of the case, the admitted position was that the services of the appellant were never terminated by the respondent Mills and they were still prepared to permit the appellant to join his duties, if he so desired. Thus, in view of this position, the appellant had no grievance or cause of action to maintain his, grievance petition before the learned Labour Court under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969. I, therefore, hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly held as such with an option to the appellant to join his duties, in view of the offer of the respondent Mills, if he so desired, subject to the right of the respondent to hold enquiry for his admitted unauthorised absence.

7. For the reasons, stated by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. This appeal is~ accordingly dismissed. M. Y. H./907/Lb. Appeal dismissed.