SAGHIR AHMAD, J.--- Through this Labour Appeal under section 47(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 2002, Ghulam Yasin-appellant has challenged the decision dated 19-4-2007, whereby the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur, has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, questioning the termination order of his services passed by the respondent.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Medical Information Officer in respondent organization on 19-7-1992. On 29-7-1993, services were confirmed w.e.f. 1-4-1993. Vide order dated 17-6-2003 passed by the respondent, his services were terminated. He challenged the said order through grievance petition before the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur, on the grounds that no show-cause notice was issued to him prior to the issuance of termination order, that no regular inquiry was carried out against him; and, that no reason was given for termination of his service. The respondent-organization contested the petition by submitting its reply, stating therein that the ' petition was not maintainable before the Punjab Labour Court, as the appellant, being a Medical Information Officer, was part of the management and did not fall within the definition of worker- workman. The learned Trial Court framed issues, including issue No. 1, which reads as under:--- "Whether the petitioner falls within the definition of worker-workman"
After recording evidence of the parties and hearing arguments of their learned counsel, the learned Trial Court, while holding that the appellant did not fall within the meaning of worker- workman, dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant as being riot maintainable, vide the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant's petition was maintainable, as he was a workman and the learned Labour Court wrongly held that petition was not maintainable. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has referred the following judgments:---
(i) A.I Hussain v. District Controller of Stores, Pakistan Railways and another (1982 PLC 1072), wherein the petitioner, a Store Issuer, helping Store Keeper in issuing articles including timber for manufacture of railway bogies in workshop, was held to be a workman;
(ii) Emirates Bank International and another v. Rana Zahid lqbal & 2 others (1999 CLC 302), wherein the respondent, an Assistant Manage of Emirates Bank International was held to be a workman or worker;
(iii) M/s. Adam Limited v. Abdul Sattar (1983 PSC 1373), in which the respondent, an Accountant of, the Company, was held to be a workman;
(iv) Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills Limited v. Muhammad Abdul Ghani and another (1975 PLC 211), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had the respondent, Chief Accountant of the Company, to be a workman;
(v) Messrs Crescent Jute Products Limited v. Mehr Zia-ul-Haq (1976 PLC 470), in which an Assistant Import Officer was held to be a workman; and
(vi) Muhammad Shafi v. Punjab Appellate Tribunal and 2 others (2003 PLC 217), a Junior Officer with respondent No. 2, was declared to be a workman.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the impugned order as well as the precedents cited at the bar.
5. The above judgments referred by the learned counsel for the appellant are not relevant to the facts of the present case, none of those precedents relates to the case of a Medical Information Officer. The question, whether the appellant, a Medical Information Officer of the respondent Organization, is a worker or workman? It would be advantageous to reproduce the definition of "workman" as given in Clause (i) of Section 2 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The same reads as under:--- "Workman means any person employed in any industrial or commercial establishment to do any skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical work for hire or reward."
It is clear that a "workman" is required to do any skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical work in any industrial or commercial establishment. The definition of "worker" and "workman" as contained in Clause (xxx) of Section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. Is as follows:--- "Worker" and "workman" means any and all persons not falling within the definition of employer who is employed in an establishment or industry for remuneration or reward either directly or through a contractor, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceedings under this Ordinance in relation to an industrial dispute includes a person who has been dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid-off or otherwise removed from employment in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge, retrenchment, lay-off or removal has led to that dispute but does not include any person who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity."
This reference of the statute clearly indicates that any person who is a part and parcel of the management does not come under the definition of "worker" or "workman". The appellant is M.Sc.
Pharmacy and highly qualified. He was initially inducted as Medical Information Officer in the respondent-Organization and was subsequently promoted to the rank of Senior Information Medical Officer and duty is to got to the doctors and chemists to produce the product of the company and also to provide information relating to medicines prepared by the company. In other words, the appellant is a Sale Representative As to a Sale Representative, it is well-settled by now that he does not fall within the definition of "worker" or "workman". I am fortified in my above view by a judgment of this Court in Muhammad Shafiq v. Messrs Knoll Pharmaceuticals Limited through Managing Director & 4 others (2003 PLC 226), wherein the petitioner, who was a sale representative in Food Company, was held to be not a workman. In the case of Syed Matloob Hassan v. Brooke Bond Pakistan Limited, Lahore (1992 SCM R 227), it was held that a salesman is not a workman. A similar view was expressed in the case of Nasir Jamal Qureshi v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal (2003 PLC 424). In Messrs Opal Laboratories Limited v. Muhammad Moinul Islam (1983 PLC 509), a learned Division Bench of the Karachi High Court held that a medical representative is not a workman. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the appellant, who was a Medical Information Officer in the respondent-Organization, did not fall within the definition of "worker" or "workman" and the learned Labour Court in observing so, rightly dismissed his grievance petition.
Resultantly, this appeal in dismissed in limine. .