' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- This appeal with leave of the Court, is directed against judgment, dated 29-10-2004, passed by learned Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, whereby Writ Petition No,6860 of 2002 filed by respondents was accepted and orders, dated 28-8-2001 and 23- 5-2002 of the forums below were declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. Facts of the case which we have gathered from the record are, that appellant Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, was appointed in the respondent-Bank as Assistant in the year 1975 and was promoted as Officer Grade-III in due course. On 18-3-1999, while appellant was posted as Officer Grade-III in Hussain Agahi Road Branch, one Muhammad Amin brought a draft of Rs,15,000. The said draft was deposited in his account. On the same day, another draft for Rs,25,000 was brought by one Mubeen Ejaz and the same was credited to the account of above mentioned Muhammad Amin. In consequence of a complaint by Branch Manager, an inquiry was held. The appellant was charge-sheeted for "misconduct" and embezzlement. Ultimately, having been found guilty, appellant was dismissed from service by respondent No,2 vide order dated 24-4-1999. Appellant, feeling aggrieved. Filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before Punjab Labour Court, Multan. The petition was contested by the respondent-Bank mainly on the ground that the appellant, being an officer, could not invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Court. The petition was accepted vide judgment, dated 28-8-2001 and appellant was directed to be reinstated in the service without back-benefits. An appeal was preferred thereagainst by respondent-Bank before learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, assailing the reinstatement of the appellant. The appellant also preferred an appeal claiming back-benefits. Learned Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, vide judgment, dated 23-5-2002 dismissed both the appeals. Respondent-Bank filed a writ petition before learned Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, seeking setting aside the judgments of the Labour Court as well as the Labour Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the appellant was not a "workman" within the definition of section 25-A read with subsection (xiii) of section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and as such grievance petition before the Labour Court was not maintainable. The plea prevailed with learned High Court and writ was allowed, as detailed and mentioned above, with following observation:-- "Case of respondent No,1 before the Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal was that of an individual dispute wherein respondent No,1 had challenged his dismissal from service through grievance petition. Inter alia, it was also alleged by him in the grievance petition that due to his past Trade Union activities, the Branch Manager Mukhtar Ahmad Lund annoyed and had nurtured personal grudge against him on account of which he was victimized but while appearing as P.W.1 he did not say a word about the said Branch Manager Mukhtar Ahmad Lund but stated that he was Vice-President of Progressive Workers Union, M.C.B. In 1994, in that context he used to help the other workers which annoyed the management. A general allegation was thus, levelled against the management without accusing or naming anyone. He admitted during cross- examination that he did not produce on record any document showing that he was Vice-President of any Union. His solitary, bald and self-serving statement was not supported or corroborated by any oral or documentary evidence. During his further statement, he said that Chief Manager was annoyed with him in the year 1999 whereafter he (respondent No,1) was charge-sheeted. This allegation was not raised by him in the grievance notice or grievance petition and was an afterthought."
4(sic). Mr. Muhammad Arif Alvi, Advocate appeared on behalf of appellant, whereas, respondent- Bank was represented by Mr. Yawar Ali Khan, Advocate.
5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also re-examined the entire record with their able assistance.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that appellant was a "workman" and Labour Laws were applicable to him and the Labour Court/Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon his grievance. The learned counsel also submitted that High Court has ignored the mandatory provisions of law and failed to appreciate that both the Courts below were concurrent on the question of the workmanship of the appellant and in these circumstances the appellant had no remedy except to file a grievance petition before the Labour Court. To substantiate the contentions, reliance was placed on Syed Matloob Hassan v. Brooke Bond Pakistan Limited, Lahore 1992 SCM R 227, National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Court No,5, Faisalabad and 2 others 1993 SCM R 672, Muhammad Ahmed v. Government of Sindh and another 1999 SCM R 255 and Messrs Shaheen Airport Services v. Nafees-ul-Hassan Siddiqui and another 2001 PLC 737.
7. As against that, learned counsel for respondents, repudiated the arguments of learned appellant's counsel and supported the impugned judgments of the forums below.
8. Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, provides that a workman may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or award or settlement for the time being in force. It is, therefore, obvious that only a workman to whom I.R.O. Is applicable, can move an application under section 25-A of the Ordinance. He also has to prove that the right was guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law. Right conferred by section 25-A is a statutory right and in order to avail himself of that right, a person must fulfil the conditions precedent to the exercise of that right. One of such conditions is that he must be a worker within the meanings of section 2(xxviii) of the Ordinance.
9. Having considered the matter from all angles in the light of the material on file, we find that since the case of appellant was that of an individual dispute unrelated to industrial dispute, he was not a workman for the purpose of section 25-A read with clause (xxviii) of section 2 of the Ordinance and was therefore, not entitled to the reedy provided by section 25-A of the Ordinance. No guaranteed or secured right of the appellant appears to have been infringed. There is nothing on the file to show that appellant had no hand in the affair and the hammer has fallen on him due to his trade union activities. The mere assertion of appellant that he was made victim of excesses due to trade union activities, without a positive attempt on his part, to substantiate the same, is of no consequence. Record indicates that appellant was charged-sheeted and criminally proceeded. An inquiry was held to probe into the matter, in which the appellant fully participated. The appellant violated the Bank's laws and misappropriated the amount. The question as to whether the appellant was a workman has been decided on the basis of an in-depth scrutiny of the evidence by the High Court, which is not open to legitimate exception. The case-law cited on behalf of the appellant is distinguishable and proceeds on different facts. It is of no help to the appellant.Pursuant to above, finding no substance in this appeal, we dismiss the same with no order as to costs.