QAISER RASHID KHAN, J. Through the instant petition, the petitioner has called in question the judgments and orders dated 30.04.2018 and 27.04.2020, respectively of the learned National Industrial Relations Commission, Single Bench, Peshawar and the learn ed National Industrial Relations Commission, Full Bench, Islamabad, whereby , his grievance petition u/s 37 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Act, 2010 has been concurrently dismissed being not maintainable.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently asserts that both the learned lower fora through their impugned findings escaped sight of the material available on the record while holding the grievance petition of the petitioner to be not maintainable. He contends that by all counts the petitioner falls within the definition of a workman keeping in view the nature of duties performed by him with the respondent-bank but such factors were not kept in view through the impugned findings whereby the grievance petition of the petitioner was dismissed.
3. Arguments heard and the available record perused.
4. The record reveals that the petitioner while serving in the respondent-bank as 0G-III / Manager Operation at Pabbi Branch, Nowshera was charged in a criminal case FIR No.33/2010 on the basis of the internal inquiry made on the complaint of a customer that an amount of rupees 1.5 million had been unauthorizedly withdrawn from his account on 6.8.2010. He was, however , acquitted in the ibid case FIR by the Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in Banks) Peshawar vide judgment and order dated 3.8.201 1. In the interregnum, the petitioner was also served with a show cause notice dated 2.2.201 1 by the respondent-bank and after completion of the inquiry proceedings, he was compulsorily retired from service vide letter dated 5.10.201 1 against which he preferred a grievance petition before the National Industrial Relations Commission, Single Bench at Peshawar and after a full dressed trial, the same was dismissed being not maintainable on the score that the duties so performed by him at the relevant time were supervisory in nature and as such, he did not fall within the definition of a workman, vide judgment and order dated 30.04.2018. Such findings were also maintained by the learned Full Bench, NIRC, Islamabad vide its judgment and order dated 27.4.2020.
5. Since the only question which requires to be looked into in the instant controv ersy is the very definition of the 'Workman', therefore, it would be more apt to refer to section 2 (xxxiii) of Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (Act No. X of 2012), which clearly states that "worker" and "workman" mean person not falling within the definition of employer who is employed (including employment as a supervisor or as an apprentice) in an establishment or industry for hire or reward either directly or through a contractor whether the terms of employment are express or implied, and, for the purpose of any proceedings under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute includes a person who has been dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid off or otherwise removed from employment in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge, retrenchment, lay-off, or removal has led to that dispute but does not include any person who is employed mainly in managerial or administrative capacity ."
Likewise, section 2 (i) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance VI of 1968 defines the "Workman", as "any person employed in any industrial or commercial establishment to do any skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical work for hire or reward is a workman" . Similarly , the term "employer" has been defined in section 2 (c) of the ibid Order , to be "the owner of an industrial or commercial establishment to which this Ordinance for the time being applies, and includes (i) in a factory , any person named under Clause (e) of sub- section (1) of Section 9 of the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934), as manager of the factory; (ii) in any industrial establishment under the control of any department of the Federal or any Provincial Government, the authority appointed by such Government in this behalf or where no such authority is so appointed, the head of the department; (iii) in any other industrial or commercial establishment, any person responsible to the owner for the supervision and control of such establis hment". Thus, a clear line has been drawn betw een the position of a 'Workman' and `Employer', which is solely based upon the respective duties performed by them. In the case of an employer , it has to be supervisory or managerial in nature while in the case of a workman, to be duties other than that.
The word 'workman' and its definition remained an enigma for quite a while and also a subject matter of debate in most of the cases. However , it has been the consistent view of the Honourable Superior Courts that it is not merely the status and the designation of a person as a determining factor to judge him to be a workman but rather the nature of duties performed by him. The august Apex Court has held a similar view in case titled "Mustehkum Cement Limited through Managing Director V ersus Abdul Rashid and Others" ( 1998 SCMR 644 ).
6. Now coming to the case of the petitioner . Undeniably , the petitioner was Manager Operation, HBL at Pabbi Branch, Nowshera and the duties so assigned to him included supervision of the bank affairs, issuance of cheque books, cancellation of cheques, issuance of cheques and handling of cheque books to the customer , control over the internal working of branch employees / subordinates and other duties on the instructions of the Branch Manager . This fact has also been also admitted by him during cross examination before the learned Single Bench, NIRC, Peshawar . The job description of the petitioner clearly shows that he does not fall within the definition of 'workman' as the duties so performed by him were managerial and supervisory in nature.
7. In view of the above legal and factual position, the NIRC hierarchy has rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the petitioner on the ground of maintainability through the impugned findings. Such findings do not suffer from any illegality , mis-reading or non-reading of evidence or jurisdictional error, so as to warrant interference of this court in the same through the present petition.
8. Resultantly , this petition being bereft of any merits stands dismissed in limine.