' ZIA PERWEZ, J.--- This petition is directed against the short order in Labour Appeal No,525 of 2003 whereby two Appeals Nos.525 of 2003 filed by the respondent against the order of the Labour Court allowing back-benefits and Labour Appeal No,526 of 2003 preferred by the petitioner against the order of fresh enquiry were decided by the following short order:- "Arguments concluded. For reasons to be recorded later on, impugned order passed by Labour Court is set aside. Consequently Appeal No,525 of 2003 is accepted."
' As reasons could not be recorded the above short order became final.
2. Petitioner being aggrieved by the findings instituted two Civil Petitions bearing Nos.78-K of 2008 and 79-K of 2008 against the order allowing Labour appeal No,525 of 2003 and Civil Petition for Leave to appeal No,79-K of 2008. On coming up for hearing petitioner did not press his petition for Leave to appeal No,79-K of 2008 same was Accordingly dismissed. Leaving the present petition No,78-K of 2008 for consideration.
3. Petitioner was employed by the respondents in 1999 as Rice/Cotton Inspector. Petitioner claimed that he discharged duties purely of a clerical nature in the agriculture Divisions of respondents. In addition to the clerical duties petitioner was also posted at go down of the company for drawing samples, checking weights and sealing the samples with his own hands. Samples so sealed were transmitted by the petitioner to the Company for onward Action. On 10-4-1997 petitioner was charge-sheeted. His reply submitted on 16-4-1997 was found unsatisfactory. Mr.Shahnawazullah Khan, an Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry in pursuance to charge sheet dated 10-4- 1997 submitted his findings and report. The matter was agitated by the petitioner vide applications dated 21-11-1997, 22-11-1997 and 29-11-1997. A fresh enquiry was conducted and petitioner claimed that no further Action was taken in the matter till 29-11-1997 when a letter of dismissal under the signature of the Managing Director was issued to him. The authenticity of the letter was also challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner after serving of a grievance notice dated 4-12-1997 approached the Labour Court. During the proceedings the petitioner examined himself whereas Farooq Ali Shah, Samim Hyder and Shahnawazullah appeared for the respondents. Enquiry report based on reports and evidence confirmed that there was variance and difference in the Actual consignments which did not confirm with the reports and samples prepared by the petitioner.
4. We have heard Mr. M. Shabbir Ghaury, learned Advocate-on Record his contention is that order of Labour Court is based on valid evidence showing the duties and character of the petitioner and on the basis to same petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed by him. That the impugned judgment without reasons is not maintainable therefore, the judgment of the learned Labour Court is the only legal and valid judgment and holding the field.
5. We have perused the record with the able assistance of the learned counsel and find that nature of the duties discharged by the petitioner was that of a Inspector where he had to make decision on the subject in the pursuance of the discharge of duties which involved application of mind and decision based on rational approach therefore he does not fall within the definition of a workman.
These duties are not merely clerical in nature. Further the report of the Enquiry Officer also supports the charge against the petitioner. The latter of dismissal is admitted by the employer therefore no ground of grievance is made out as no prejudice is caused to the petitioner on account of the fact that the Managing Director proceeded abroad. A short order duly signed by the Presiding Judges operates as the final order or judgment if the learned Judge, for some reasons could not record the reasons as is in the instant case, as held by this Court in the case of The State v. Asif Adil and others 1997 SCM R 209. Therefore the contentions of the learned Advocate Supreme Court are devoid of any substance.
6. For the foregoing reasons we did not find any ground for interference with the short order. Mr. M.S. Ghauri, learned Advocate on-Record had earlier moved an application for seeking adjournment, no valid ground for an adjournment is made out. This petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused along with the adjournment application.