' S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.--- This labour appeal is filed by the Member, Board of Directors, Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, against the respondent (Javaid Hussain Naqi) under sections 47 and 48 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against the judgment and order, dated 4-10-2007 passed by the Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan.
2. The respondent as Branch Manager was served with charge-sheet on 3-6-1980. The allegations were of misappropriation and serious irregularities along with tampering with the record for which the respondent filed the reply and inquiry was held. The Inquiry officer held him guilty of carelessness but the competent authority disagreed with the report of Inquiry Officer and issued the show-cause notice and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, the respondent was dismissed on 28-11-1982 from the service. The respondent filed a departmental appeal and after dismissal of the same filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 claiming himself to be a workman. The appellants (M.C.B.) categorically raised the objection that the respondent was not a workman hence the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. Also the respondent was involved in heinous crime of cheating, fraud, misappropriation and embezzlement of amount. Along with the preliminary on the facts, objections were also raised.
It was specifically pointed out that the respondent has also moved the same grievance petition to the National Industrial Relations Commission, which was dismissed, therefore, he was debarred to recourse to the Labour Court. The grievance petition of the respondent in the Labour Court at one stage was dismissed in default which was not restored and on request during the course of proceeding for restoration, the matter on the request was adjourned sine die. Thereafter, it was restored and vide order dated 4-10-2007, the learned Labour Court accepted the grievance petition and reinstated him with 50% back-benefits. Hence this appeal.-
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. It has been alleged by the learned counsel for the respondent that he was a workman and cannot be ousted from the definition only being Incharge of the branch. The evidence produced by the respondent on the point remains unrebutted. The duty he has been performing was of workman and he produced his evidence about the nature of work that he has been working with hand as a labourer and in rebuttal thereof no evidence by the appellants have been produced. The respondent served with grievance notice on 2-6-1983 and the grievance petition was filed on 13-8- 1983. The grievance petition was filed within two months. The respondent when was dismissed from service was officer of the bank posted at Dera Ghazi Khan and not a Manager. He had not been superivisoring to any employee.
5. The main objection raised is on the jurisdiction of the Labour Court that the respondent was holding a managerial and administrative post at the time when charge-sheet was issued. He was not a workman being not covered under the definition given in the section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In view of the learned counsel for the appellants the Labour Court could not assume and exercise the jurisdiction, therefore, the impugned judgment is nullity in the eyes of law. It has been pressed hardly that this point of jurisdiction be decided firstly without going into the merits of the case. There is no denial of the fact that respondent was dismissed on account of very serious objections during his posting at Dajal Branch being Incharge of entire Branch and allegedly committed the misappropriation. I would confine myself to this point in the light of provisions of section 2(xxviii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which is reproduced as under:- - (xxviii) "Worker" and "Workman" means any person not falling within the definition of employer who is employed (including employment **[as a supervisor or] as an apprentice) in an establishment or industry for hire or reward either directly or through a contractor whether the terms of employment be expressed 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---
(a) who is employed mainly in managerial or administrative capacity; or
(b) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding eight hundred Rupees per mensum or performs, either because of the nature of duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.
' The perusal of the said definition demands for inquiry into the facts to determine whether an employee was workman or not. The objections raised in the written statement and the evidence portion referred, specifically in para.4 of the grievance petition and that at the time of issuance of charge-sheet, the respondent recorded himself as Branch Manager. In the light of the referred portion, in view of the learned counsel for the appellants that where it was an admitted position need not to prove further. He also referred reported case Dilshad Khan Lodhi v. Allied Bank of Pakistan 2007 PLC 41 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan held that "employee of a Bank holding a branch and performing a supervisory work although have no power of hire and fire but nature of duties performed by such employee appearing to be of managerial and supervisory nature, such employee would fall beyond the ambit and purview of the term "workman".
6. The respondent at the time when was charge-sheeted for serious allegation like misappropriation , cheating and embezzlement of amount was Incharge of the Dajal Branch and was serving as Manager. It was the relevant when was charge-sheeted during the period, posted as Branch Manager. The perusal of section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the definition of the worker embodied therein reveals that he as Manager and occupied a supervisory post, therefore, in my view, the Labour Court was not having jurisdiction as the respondent was not covered by the definition of workman.
7. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that the respondent was not workman at the relevant time for which during the period of posting as Manager at Dajal Branch and charge- sheeted for serious allegation, therefore the impugned order, dated 4-10-2007 has been passed without jurisdiction. Therefore, I set aside the same. However, the respondent may avail remedy before appropriate forum whatever under the law available. This appeal is accepted accordingly.