HAQ NAWAZ BALOCH Versus MESSRS KARACHI X-RAYS, KARACHI

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the impugned order, dated 13‑8‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.1 Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to have been employed in the respondent establishment since December, 1981 as Radiographer (X‑Ray Technician) and continued to perform his duties till 30‑6‑1983, when according to the appellant his services were orally terminated due to difference with respondent establishment over the issues of overtime wage for 4 hours daily extra work, bonus, annual increment and other benefits. Therefore, the appellant after complying with the legal requirements, had filed the grievance petition before the Labour Court.

3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition mainly on the grounds that as the respondent establishment has been functioning for the treatment and care of sick and infirmed persons and that he is not a workman therefore, the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, were not applicable to him. The respondent establishment had also alleged that the appellant had committed misconduct therefore, he was rightly removed from the employment, so he could not maintain the grievance petition under section 25‑A I.R.O. 1969, which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits in evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter the learned Labour Court had dismissed the grievance petition. I have heard Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmed, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S. M. Yaqoob, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position by the appellant that he was performing skilled manual work in the respondent establishment and used to operate X‑Ray machines and that he was initially getting a salary of Rs.1,575.00 which was raised at the relevant time to Rs.2,000.00. From the record it is not established that what actual duties the appellant was performing at the time of termination of his services. Mere designation is immaterial for determination whether the person is a workman or not. In view of this position, I would agree with the learned Labour Court that the appellant was not a workman, so he could not maintain the grievance petition. Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmed, the learned Advocate for the appellant has miserably failed to refer to any document or authority in support of his contention that the appellant was a workman. As regards the other contention of Mr. Ch. Rasheed, the learned Advocate for the appellant, they have no force. The impugned order is well reasoned and there is nothing wrong to interfere with it.

6. For the reason as discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and I would maintain the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

M. Y. H./1009/Lb.S

Appeal dismissed