' This petition under Section 33 of IRA, 2012 has been filed by the petitione r Muhammad Yaqoob Ex-Field Marketing Officer, who according to him was appointed as Medical Information Officer by the respondents company vide letter dated 16-02-2005 on contract basis for the period of eleven months. The petitioner , as disclosed in the petition, served the respondents with full devotion and was promoted as "Sales Promotion Officer" vide letter dated 31-12-2008. He was also confirmed on the said post on the same date i.e. 31-12-2008. Later on due to his unblemished performance he was again promoted to the post of "Sr. Field contents of petition he was surprised to know vide letter dated 30-09-2014 that he was terminated without any cause/reason that too without issuing any show-cause notice.
2. In the bottom of petition, following relief has been sought by the petitioner:-- ' A.That the termination letter dated 30-09-2014 and rejection of petitioner's departmental appeal vide letter dated 28-10-2014 are illegal and against the norms of justice and result of victimization and unfair labor practices, as such, the same may be set aside.
B.The respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all back benefits.
C.The respondents be further directed not to proceed with illegal and unfair labour practice onward.
D.Any other relief which this Honorable Commission may deem fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case may also be accorded.
3The respondents, by filing their written statement have strongly contested the petition and have raised certain legal objections. It is denied in the written statement that the petitioner is a "Workman". It has been agitated in the written statement that the petitioner was performing his duty on the post of senior Field Marketing Officer in Senior Management Cadre and was being paid an amount of Rs,26,364/- per month salary along with other benefits incentives i.e, Medical, repair and maintenance charges of Motorcycle, Travelling expenses etc, therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as worker within the meaning of Section 2 of I.R.A, 2012.
4.The respondents further stated that this Bench of Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the petitioner was appointed in Karachi and he was controlled, supervised and paid salary by the Head office of the company at Karachi termination letter was issued from Head Of fice in Karachi.
5. Both the parties have filed their documents relied upon by them with their pleadings. I have heard the arguments at length. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner is a workman and was initially appointed as "Medical information officer" vide letter dated 16-02-2005 on contract basis, thereafter he was promoted in the year 2007 on the post of "Field Officer" vide letter dated 31-12-2007 and he was further promoted on the post of "Sales Promotion Officer" vide letter dated 31-12-2008 and was confirmed on the said post vide same letter dated 31-12-2008. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have no authority to terminate the petitioner who is a confirmed employee without issuing any show-cause notice to him, therefore, the act of respondent is illegal and comes within the ambit of unfair labour practice. In the last of his arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be reinstated in service with all back benefits. The learned counsel during the course of arguments relied upon the documents annexed with his petition.
6.On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently disputed the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the petition is a "Workman". The learned counsel invited the attention of Commission towards the contents of appointment letters and promotion letters i.e, 16-02-.2005, 31-12-2007 and 31-12-2008 (available on file) and submitted that bear perusal of the contents of above documents which have been relied upon by the petitioner would reveal that the petitioner from the day one was not employed as a workman rather he was appointed as a Medical information Officer on contract basis wherein certain monitory facility was given to him besides salary such as Travelling allowance, daily allowance and conveyance allowance, these allowances according to learned counsel for respondents are not allowe d to any workman. Therefore, according to learned counsel for respondents, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter in hand.
7.I have perused the record carefully . The appointment letter , promotion and confirm ation letters dated 16-02-2005, 31-12-2007 and 31-12-2008 relied upon by both the parties' reveals that the petitioner was initially appointed on 16-02-2005 on the post of Medical Information Officer on contract basis for eleven months and was posted at Quetta, thereafter the petitioner was promoted twice as Field Officer and Senior Sales Promotion Officer by the respondents is also an admitted fact. The appointment letter dated 16-02-2005 would reveal that he besides his salary he was getting travelling allowance, daily allowance and conveyance allowance, these allowances in any commercial establishment or industry are not available to any worker or workman and further that his appointment according to the said appointment letter was on contract basis with the following clause:- Notice period ' Your services are liable to be terminated by either side without any notice or payment in lieu thereof, however based on satisfactory history of the performance and mutual understanding, termination by either side will be with one month notice or one month salary in lieu of the notice period.
8. That promotion letter dated 31-12-200 7 reveals that he was promoted as "Field Officer" with the terms and conditions mentioned in it. For convenien ce Clauses No, 8 and 18 of the said letter are being reproduced herein under to understand the nature of job of petitioner:- "8. You will be a trustee of and will be responsible for the safe keeping, orderly maintenance and return in good condition and order of all Company's property which may be in your use custody or charge. The Company shall have the right to deduct the money value of all such things from your dues and take such other action as the Company deems proper in the event of your failure to the Management's satisfaction".
"18.Y our appointment in the management cadre the responsibility entrusted to you is such that you will be serving us as part of the management of the company".
' Bare perusal of above mentioned clauses and other terms and conditions of the appointment order , it reveals that the petitioner was the part of management cadre and said terms and conditions of appointment letter was accepted by both the parties and signed by the petitioner without any objection. It is also evident from record that he has never denied these documents and terms and conditions mentioned therein rathe r have admitted and relied upon the same.
9.According to record filed by the respondents and admitted by the petitioner he was promoted as Senior Field Marketing Officer on 21-03-201 1 and was given motorcycle to facilitate him in discharging his duties and documents filed by the respondents also prove that the petitioner was also getting various other allowances from the company which are not available to any worker .
10. That petitioner in my opinion, due to the above mentioned documentary evidence does not fall within the definition of workman, as defined under the I.R.A, 2012. Furthermore the documents also prove that the petitioner was a member of management cadre and was working on a quite attractive post and was drawing Rs, 26,364/- alongwith several other facilities such as free air travel and accommodations in superior hotels in order to promote the business of employer , therefore, too the petitioner could not claim himself a workman. Reliance is place on a case law reported in 1999 PLC 273 , the relevant portion of the same is being reproduced herein below:--
11. In view of the above discussion, the petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order to cost.