MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR AHMED Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE

ORDER

1. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑ This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Muhammad Iftikhar Ahmad petitioner and is directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 17 March, 1986.

2. The background is that the petitioner was appointed on 2 November, 1981 and was working as purchase supervisor with respondent No.2, He was charge‑sheeted on 4 January, 1984 and was dismissed from service on 6 February, 1984 by respondent No.2 on the grounds of misconduct. Against his dismissal the petitioner moved a petition before the Labour Court which was accepted and the petitioner was reinstated with back benefits on 5 January, 1985. Thereupon respondent No.2 preferred are appeal against the aforesaid order of the Labour Court before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which was accepted on 23 July, 1985 and the order of the Labour Court was set aside on the ground that the petitioner was not "workman" and therefore he was not competent to move the Labour Court. This order was challenged by the petitioner by way of writ petition which was dismissed. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to page 95 of the paper book to show as to what functions were being performed by the petitioner. He then referred to section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations ordinance which provides definition of a workman. He argued that in the light of the definition of the workman and the functions which the petitioner was performing he had to be considered as a workman and that there was no justification on the part of the Lahore High Court, Lahore to have arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was rightly held by the Tribunal as not a "workman". In support of his arguments learned counsel placed reliance on PLD 1969 Lah. 717 (Chairman Brooke Bond (Pak) Ltd. v. General Secretary, Union Kar kunane Brooke Bond (Pak) Ltd.) as well as 1985 S C M R 1511 (Ganga R. Madhani v. Standard Bank Ltd.) and argued that in the light of the principles laid down in these judgments the petitioner was a workman as the evidence showing the duties actually performed by the petitioner made it clear that he was a workman.

4. We grant leave in this case to examine the question inter alia as to whether or not the petitioner is a workman as contemplated by section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.

5. M .I. /M‑446/8 Leave granted.