' ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).--- The captioned revision petitions are directed against the orders dated 30-11-2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,7, Gujranwala whereby the applications of the petitioners under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Have been dismissed. Since identical questions of law and facts have been raised as such it would be convenient to dispose of all the three revision petitions through this single judgment.
2. Essential fact of the cases for the disposal are that all the three respondents were bank employees and had been awarded penalty of dismissal/compulsory retirement after long service.
During pendency of the grievance petitions filed by the respondents, the learned counsel for the present petitioners moved applications under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Contending, inter alia, that they are not workmen and as such the grievance petitions may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
3. The applications were vigorously contested by the respondent and ultimately the learned Labour Court held that prima facie there was no indication in the record that they have ever served in the managerial capacity and as such this point can only be determined by recording of evidence.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners claimed that all the three respondents have served in administrative/supervisory capacity as such the learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate the real facts and has erred while dismissing the applications. Besides it was also claimed that in identical case of Waheed v. MCB the learned Labour Court has non-suited the grievance petitioner on the ground that he was holding administrative position as such the court has departed from the view with a mala fide intention.
5. Preliminary arguments have been heard.
6. I am afraid learned counsel for the petitioners has not done justice to the learned Labour Court in attributing mala fides to him as it is obvious that in Waheed's case it was clearly admitted that he was a Credit Manager, therefore, the order was perfectly in consonance with law when he was non-suited. In these petitions however, the court has clearly held that there is no indication that they have ever held any managerial post, therefore, there was no comparison between Waheed's case and in the present cases.
7. Acid test for determining the status of a workman is the nature of his duties but where there are conflicting claims of the parties then the said issue can only be determined by recording of evidence and not otherwise. Attribution of mala fides to say the least is shocking because it has been backed with no cogent reasons. Even otherwise, all' the three revision petitions appear to be incompetent inasmuch as neither copies of the applications under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Nor their replies as well as the copies of the grievance petitions and their replies have also not been filed for proper appreciation of the cases8.(?)In this view of the matter, the revision petitions merit dismissal in limine on the grounds:--- .
8.
(1) The factual controversy cannot be resolved without recording of evidence and,
(2) The revisions are not properly documented.