1984 PLC(CS) 810

This appeal arises from the decision dated 28th July, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.

2. The learned lower Court has held that the appellant was not a workman and that the General Manager was competent to dismiss the appellant, inasmuch as the Director in his reply said that the General Manager has dismissed the appellant under his direction. However, no written direction was produced. The dispute cannot be finally resolved at this stage, because first of all the question whether the appellant is a workman or not, is to be decided. In view of the designation of the appel lant, the onus was upon him to prove that he was, according to the nature of his duties, covered by the definition of workman, but he did not lead any evidence oral or documentary on the point. Since the question touches the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, it appears necessary that the appel lant be afforded opportunity to produce elaborate evidence on the point. Since the appellant did not produce evidence on the point, the respondent appears to have taken the matter lightly. Proper and correct adjudication is possible only when both the parties have brought on the record the whole of relevant material.

3. As a result of the observations made above, 1 accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, remand' the case with the direction that after affording proper opportunity to both the parties to produce evidence on the point of workman as defined in section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and section 2 (i) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the whole case be re-decided. The parties will be at liberty to produce evidence on other. points involved in the case also, if they so like.

Appeal accepted.