ADNAN-UL-KARIM MEMON, J.-- Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 20.5.2014, passed by the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi (Respondent No,2) in cross appeal No,KAR-696/2010 and Appeal No,KAR-697/2010 whereby upheld the decision dated 24.2.2004 of learned Labour Court No, 2, Karachi (Respondent No,3) for re- instatement of the worker Nasimul Hassan (Respondent No,1) with full back benefits and findings of the learned Labour Court No,II, Karachi, with regard to allowing compensation in lieu thereof was set-aside.
2. The facts of the case are that the Petitioner-Company/Messrs Wyeth Pakistan Limited (Petitioner), hired the service of the Respondent No,1 and posted him at its Lahore office. Per Petitioner-Company Respondent No,1 had resigned from service of Petitioner-Company on 31.07.1984; however, he again joined the Petitioner-Company on 16.03.1986 as Temporary Assistant Supervisor at Karachi and resigned from service on 28.06.1988, which was accepted by the Petitioner's Management on 29.06.1988. As per averments, the Respondent No,1 was again appointed as Assistant Supervisor Personnel in the Management cadre vide appointment letter dated 10.07.1988 and was subsequently promoted from the post/position of Assistant Supervisor- Personnel to the post/ position of Supervisor Personnel and Administration in Grade-7 vide promotion letter dated 24.06.1993 w,e,f, 01.07.1993 and his emoluments were also enhanced/increased and all the terms and conditions contained in the appointment letter dated 10.07.1988 were duly accepted by the Respondent No,
1. Per Petitioner-Company, the service of the Respondent No,1 was terminated vide letter dated 30.10.2002, by assigning cogent reasons.
Respondent No,1,being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Impugned Termination Order dated 30.10.2002, filed grievance Petition on 30.12.2002, under Section 46 of Industrial Relation Ordinance, 2002, before learned Labour Court No,II, Karachi. Petitioner-Company filed objections. Learned Sindh Labour Court No,II, Karachi, after recording evidence of the parties and hearing them passed the Impugned Judgment dated 24.02.2004, in Case No,142/2002, and awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement of respondent No,1, which was assailed by both the parties before learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal. Learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi after hearing the parties passed the Impugned Judgment dated 20.5.2014, in cross Appeal No,KAR-696/2010 and Appeal No,KAR-697/2010, whereby partly allowed the decision dated 24.2.2004 of learned Labour Court No, II, Karachi for reinstatement of the worker Nasimul Hassan (Respondent No,1) with full back benefits and findings of the learned Labour Court No, II, Karachi with regard to allowing compensation in lieu thereof was set-aside. Petitioner-Company, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the decisions rendered by both the Courts below has approached this Court on 4.7.2014.
3. Mr. Muhammad Humanyoon learned counsel for the Petitioner-Company has argued that learned Member, Labour Appellate Tribunal passed the Impugned Judgment dated 20.05.2014 without considering the facts and circumstances available on record, hence the same is illegal unlawful and bad in law; that the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,II, Karachi as well as Member, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal have failed to appreciate that the Respondent No,1 had accepted his termination letter dated 30.10.2002 without any protest and/or objections and thereafter the Petitioner-Company had duly paid the entire dues of the Respondent No,1 in full and final settlement, which was duly received and acknowledged by the Respondent No,1, therefore, the Impugned Judgment dated 20.05.2014 passed by the Member, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi as well as Impugned Judgment dated 24.02.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,II, Karachi are illegal, unlawful and against the law and are liable to be set aside; that the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,II, Karachi as well as Member, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal have also failed to appreciate that the Respondent No,1 during his cross- examination has admitted that:- "It is a fact that I received leave fair assistance amount Rs,21224/- at the time of termination. It is fact that besides that I received an amount of Rs,155803/- being full and final settlement of account." Learned counsel has further contended that Impugned Judgment dated 20.05.2014 passed by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal Karachi and Impugned Judgment dated 24.02.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court II, Karachi are illegal, unlawful and void and are liable to be set aside; that both the learned Courts below have also failed to appreciate that a Suit for Damages filed by the respondent No,1 before Hon'ble High Court of Sindh at Karachi is pending. adjudication and this fact was admitted by the Respondent No,1 during his cross-examination, therefore, the Impugned Judgment dated 20.05.2014 passed by both the Courts below are illegal, unlawful and liable to be set aside; that both the learned Courts below have also committed grave error in misreading and non-reading the evidence available on record that the Respondent No,1 who Was promoted as Supervisor Personnel and Administration since 1993 was predominantly performing supervisory and administrative duties during the tenure of his service; that the supervisory performance evaluation sheets produced by the Respondent No,1 describes the overwhelming supervisory and administrative nature of different types of duties performed by the Respondent No,1, which clearly oust him from the definition of workman under Section 2(xxx) of IRO, 2002 as well as under Section 2(i) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968; that both the learned Courts below have erred in law by holding that the Respondent No,1 falls under the definition of workman under Section 2(i) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, whereas it has been established that the Respondent No,1 was performing supervisory and administrative nature of duties and was not covered by the definition of workman. He lastly prays for allowing the instant petition.
4. Mr. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan Advocate for the Respondent No,1 has contended that the Respondent No,1 worked in Lahore office of Petitioner-Company for 14 years and resigned on 31.07.1984 and he again joined Petitioner-Company at Karachi office on 16.03.1986 as temporary Assistant Supervisor Personnel; that the resignation of the Respondent No,1 was again accepted on 29.06.1988 and he was again appointed by Petitioner- Company as Assistant Supervisor Personnel on 10:07.1988, subsequently the designation of Respondent No,1 was changed as Supervisor Personnel and Administration with effect from 01.07.1993; that during course of employment Respondent No,1 was doing clerical work, neither any body was working under him nor he was supervising work of anybody; that the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and Indus Relations Ordinance, 2002 are applicable to the Respondent No,1 as well as establishment of Petitioner-Company; that Respondent No,1 was doing clerical work, therefore he comes in the definition of 'worker' or 'workman' within the meaning of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 or Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002; that the instant Petition is frivolous, misleading; that there are concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below and this Court has limited jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan to dilate upon the evidence of the parties. He lastly prayed for dismissal of instant Petition. He relied upon the case of Qaisar and others v.
Muhammad Shafaqat Sharif (2012 SCM R 743), Farast Hussain and others v. Pakistan National Shipping Corporation and others. (2005 PLC CS 890), Muhammad Hanif and others v. Sultan (1994 SCM R 279), ENMAY ZED Publication (Pvt.) v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others (2001 SCM R 565) and General Manager National Radio Telecommunication Corporation, Harri Pur District Abbotabad v. Muhammad Aslam and others (1992 SCM R 2169).
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondent No,1 and with their assistance carefully gone through the material placed on record by both the parties and case law cited at the bar.
6. The primordial question in the present proceedings is whether Respondent No,1 is Worker and workmen?
7. In order to evaluate grievance of Petitioner-Company in respect of allegations that the Respondent No,1, is not Worker and workmen. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:
(i) Whether applicant was a worker or workman within meaning of Standing Orders, Ordinance, 2002.
(ii) Whether services of respondent No,1 were terminated legally.
8. Section 2(h) (i) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and Section 2(xxx) of Industrial Relation Ordinance, 2002 provide the definitions of Worker and workmen. The learned trial Court has dilated upon this issue in its true perspective, therefore there is no need further deliberation on that point however the Honorable Supreme Court has provided guiding principle in the case of National Bank of Pakistan and others v. Anwar Shah and others (2015 SCM R 434) and held that designation of a person could not be considered to be a factor determining his status of employment in an establishment to be that of an officer or a workman. Nature of duties and function of a person is to be considered to be the factor which would determine whether his status is that of a workman or not designation per se was not determinative of a person being a workman rather the nature of his duties and function determined his status.
9. We have perused the deposition of Respondent No,1 and Mr. Humayun Nazir Associate Director, Human Resource and (Admin), Muhammad Younis Lodhi, dispatcher and Muhammad Bashir, photocopier of Petitioner-Company.
10. We also note that representative of the Petitioner-Company has admitted in the cross- examination that:- "It is a fact that the work, which was being done by the applicant is still being done in the Respondent's company. Voluntarily says that said work has been distributed between two persons".
11. From the aforementioned excerpt, we concur with a view taken by the learned Labour Court on both the counts that is the duties assigned to Respondent No,1 were clerical and in manual nature and service of the Respondent No,1 were terminated prior to the abolition of the post but later on the duties of a Respondent No,1 were distributed amongst two officers and the post has been abolished, however we do not agree with the finding of learned Labour Court that reinstatement of Respondent No,1 in service and will create problems from the both the parties and wrongly reached at the conclusion that compensation equivalent 20 months wages will meet the ends of justice.
However the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal has rightly corrected the decision of learned Labour Court to that extent and passed the Impugned Judgment dated 20.05.2014 which is not called for interference.
12. We are of the view that the learned trial Court has dilated upon the issues in an elaborative manner and gave findings in affirmative by appreciating the evidence of the parties and that the Respondent No,2 also considered every aspect of the case and thereafter passed the explanatory Judgment, therefore no ground existed for re-evaluation of evidence, thus, we maintain the Judgment dated 20.05.2014 of the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal. We are fortified by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Dilshad Khan Lodhi v.
Allied Bank of Pakistan and others (2008 SCM R 1530) and General Manager National Radio Telecommunication Corporation Haripur District Abotabad v. Muhammad Aslam and others (1992 SCM R 2169).
13. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction cannot interfere in the concurrent findings of facts arrived by the two competent forums and we do not see any illegality, infirmity or material irregularity in the judgment dated 20.05.2014 of the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, warranting indulgence of this Court, hence, the instant Petition is meritless and dismissed along with listed application(s).