' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that appellant joined as a Chemist with the respondent concern. On 5-8-1997, he allegedly filed an application for leave w,e,f, 6-8-1997 to 6-10-1997 for appearing in M.A. Islamiat papers. He accordingly proceeded on leave and after the exams reported back on duty on 7-10-1997. Neither any refusal of leave was conveyed to him nor any other communication was sent to him. However, on his return he was informed that his services have been terminated, whereupon, on 2-12-1997 he sent a grievance notice to the respondents and then filed his grievance petition on 12-12-1997. After concluding trial the learned Labour Court vide order, dated 28-7-2003, dismissed appellant's grievance petition on the sole ground that appellant is not a workman within the meaning of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The same is being assailed through the instant appeal.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are based on presumptions as no evidence from either side was looked into by the learned Labour Court so as to ascertain the nature of job being performed by the appellant with the respondents. It is thus, contended that finding is based on presumptions and conjectures.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contents that there is no dispute with regard to the nature of job being performed by the appellants, therefore, there was no need to consult the evidence on record .
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The parties on the question of nature of job are not in agreement. According to the appellant the'work done by him is not of managerial or supervisory nature, while according to the respondents the appellant was having such powers as to bring him out of the definition of workman. Both the parties had led evidence in support of their respective case but the learned Labour Court had failed to examine the same and on presumptions concluded that nature of job being performed by the appellant was such that he could not fall within the definition of workman.
In such-like case, it was necessary that, the evidence should have been considered and identified the nature of job being performed by the appellant so as to assess as to whether he is or is not a workman.
6. For what has been stated above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order, dated 28-7-2003 is set aside. Resultantly, the case is remanded to the learned Labour Court who shall give a right of audience to both the parties and thereafter proceed to decide the case after going through the record as a whole. No order as to costs.