1985 PLC 1034

GUL ZARIN KIANI, J. -In this constitutional petition, petitioner, employee of the respondent-Bank, has called into question the order, dated 12th December, 1984 of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, passed in Appeal No. MN-512/83 whereby decision, dated 31st July, 1983 of Punjab Labour Court No. 9 ordering reinstatement of the petitioner with certain amount of back benefits was set aside and the case was remitted for fresh inquiry with regard to the nature of duties performed by the petitioner at the time of his dismissal. This, was to find out whether he was a `workman' as defined in the relevant law and as such entitled to invoke jurisdiction of Labour Courts.

2. As a result of the charge-sheet served and inquiry conducted against the petitioner, he was dismissed from service. On a grievance petition moved under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, Punjab Labour Court, Multan ordered his reinstatement. However, on appeal by the bank, the order was set aside and the case was remitted for fresh inquiry. Bt was observed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal that sufficient material was not brought on record to show the duties performed by the petitioner at the time his dismissal was ordered. Consequently to determine the question whether the petitioner was a workman, it was necessary to know the exact nature of the duties per formed by him. , It is apparent that the appellate Court in view of insufficiency of material brought on file thought it fit to remand the case to the Labour Court.

3. After having heard the learned counsel and examining the available material we are of the view that the impugned order is just and proper and in fact the parties have been provided an opportunity to bring on record more material in respect of the most important point requiring determination in the case. In case final order passed by the Labour Court goes against the petitioner, he will also have a fresh right of appeal. -

4. Moreover remand is a necessary incidence of appellate jurisdiction and in the circumstances of this case the jurisdiction exercised does not appear to be suffering from any legal infirmity.

5. For the reasons given above we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case for interference in constitutional jurisdiction. Petition being without force is dismissed in limine.

A.A.

Petition dismissed.