1984 PLP 38 (PLC)

S.2 (i) -Workman-Whether or not an employer was a workman Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal after application of mind and giving cogent reasons concluding that employee was not a work. man-No law pointed out suggesting that he was a workman Concurrent findings of Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances, refused to be interfered with by High Court in writ jurisdiction-Writ jurisdiction-Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9. Ch. Muhammad Ramzan Ayaz for Petitioner. This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 whereby Shaukat Ali Qureshi, petitioner wants this Court to declare the orders dated 15th .July 1979, 24th September, 1981 and 31st October, 1982 passed by Branch Manager of Brooke Bond Pakistan, Ltd., respondent No. 1, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal respondent No. 3 and Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, respondent No. 2, to be without lawful autho rity and of no legal effect. 2. The facts leading up to this petition in brief are that Shaukat Ali petitioner was employed with Brooke Bond Pakistan Ltd., as a salesman. On 14th May, 1979, he was charge-sheeted for misappropriation of the company's cash and thereafter, was dismissed by respondent No. 1 on 15th July, 1979. The petitioner challenged his dismissal before the Punjab Labour Court No. 9. Multan, but his petition was dismissed on 24th September, 1981. Feeling aggrieved by this order, he filed appeal before Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, which too, was dismissed on 31st October, 1982. Hence this petition. 3. The learned counsel submits (1) That the allegations of misappropriation against the petitioner weri totally false in as much as, the case registered against the petitioner under section 460/471/467, P.P.C. has failed. and the petitioner has been acquitted by Magistrate 1st Class, Vehari, on 26th October, 1982. (2) That the findings of the learned Courts below that the petitioner was not a workman under section 2 (1) (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, is incorrect in as much as the petitioner at the time of appoint ment was provided with an order in writing showing the terms and conditions of his service. 4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the reasons that mere acquittal from a criminal Court neither debars any departmental action nor nullifies the order of dis missal, if any. Further, this Court while sitting in constitutional jurisdiction cannot enter into the investigation to see whether the allegations of mis appropriation are correct or not. As far as submission at 2, 1 find that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have applied their mind to find out whether the petitioner was a workman or not and have concurrently held that the petitioner was not a workman. The respondents have given cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at. The learned counsel have not been able to point out any provision of law to the effect that the petitioner was a "workman". 5. For .what has been. stated above, there being no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed in limine. A. E. Petition dismissed.