1. DECISION MAHMOOD AHMAD SOOFI (CHAIRMAN).-This complaint under Standing Order No. 18 (b) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 has been instituted by the petitioner Kamal Khan, the son of Ali Khan. It is directed against Mr. Khalid Aziz, Senior Mining Engineer, Makerwal Collieries, Makerwal (Mianwali) as the respondent. In his complaint the petitioner has submitted that he was working as a Mining Sirdar tinder the supervision of the Manager (D) Section. On the date 26th May 1970, the respon--dent received a report from Muhammad Siddiq, Safety Engineer, and Muhammad Yaqoob, Head Surveyor, to the effect that certain tunnels had been shown and paid for as 349 feet: A copy of that report is attached herewith as Annexure 'B'. On receiv--ing that report the respondent suspended the petitioner from his post on the date 26th of May 1970. On the 30th of May '1970 the respondent extended .the period of his suspension from the 30th of May 1970 until the 2nd June 1970. The respondent then constituted an enquiry board for the purpose of inquiring into the charges against the petitioner. Eventually, on the date 6-7-1970, the respondent, after holding the petitioner Kamal Khan to be guilty of misconduct under Standing Order. No. 15 (3) (b) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, dismissed the petitioner from service with immediate effect. According to - the petitioner no adequate opportunity of defending himself was afforded to the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that this Court might order his reinstate--ment in service under Standing Order No. 18 (b) of the West Pa--kistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
2. A reply to the petitioner's complaint was submitted on behalf of the respondent by. Mr. Mahmood Zaman, Advocate. In that reply certain preliminary objections were raised against the com--plaint under consideration. First, the respondent contended that the petitioner Kamal Khan, who was formerly serving as a Mining Sirdar, was not a 'workman' and was, consequently, 'not entitled to institute 4 9ompJaiqt in this Court under Standing Order No. 18 (b) of the above-mentioned Ordinance. According to the respondent the duties of the petitioner were of supervisory nature.
3. Secondly, the respondent maintained that since the petitioner had not claimed to be an officer of any Trade Union and since he had not specified any benefit accruing to him under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, of which he could accuse the respondent of having deprived the petitioner, therefore the complaint of the petitioner was not maintainable. According to the respondent's reply the petitioner was appointed as a Mining Sirdar with effect from 1-3-54 on daily wages. Subsequently, with effect from 1-9-1966, he began to be paid on a monthly basis. The respon--dent emphasized the fact that the petitioner was never employed as a workman but only entrusted with duties of a supervisory nature.
4. I have given full consideration to the arguments of the petitioner-complainant Kamal Khan himself and also to the counter-arguments of the respondent's counsel Mr. Mahmood Zaman, Advocate.
5. It is an indisputable fact that under Standing Order No. 18(b) of the above-mentioned Ordinance no complaint is maintainable against an order of termination of the employment of any workman unless that workman is in fact an officer of a registered Trade Union and his employment is alleged to have been terminated on account of Trade Union activities. The petitioner Kamal Khan has neither claimed to have been an officer of a registered Trade Union immediately before his dismissal nor is there any indication on the record that he ever held any such position. On the other hand, if the petitioner's case is considered as that of an ordinary workman then the crucial question that calls for determination is whether a Mining Sirdar can be regarded as a workman within the meaning attached to that term in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 Clause (i) of section 2 of that Ordinance contains the following definition of a workman :-- "workman" means any person employed in any industrial or commercial establishment to do any skilled or unskilled manual or clerical labour for hire or reward."
6. The petitioner has not brought forward any documentary evidence nor has he cited any facts to establish the claim that Mining Sirdar can be regarded as a person employed to perform any skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical, labour for hire a reward. The burden of satisfying this Court in regard to this petitioner's having been employed by the respondent as a workman obviously rested upon the petitioner/complainant Kamal Khan himself. He has, however, failed to convince this Court that he was workman in the legal sense of that term. Consequently I have no option but to concern with the objection raised by the respondent against the petitioner's complaint. Since the petitioner was not a workman employed by the respondent, therefore he is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court in hi favour under Standing Order No. 18 (b) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. His complaint is, therefore, dismissed.