1. DECISION MAHMOOD AHMAD SOOF1 (CHAIRMAN).-This complaint has been instituted by the petitioner/complainant Manga Khan 'the son of Chand Khan under Standing Order No. 18 (b) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. It is directed against the order' dated 5-9-1970 passed under the authority of the 'respondent Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Lahore by which the. service of the petitioner in the capacity of a driver in the employment of the respondent was terminated. In his complain be petitioner complainant has stated that he was first employed with effect from the date 2nd June 1967 as a driver in the Government Transport Service, Lyallpur. On the date 22-7-1967 the District Manager of the Government Transport Service, Lyallpur, sent a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to furnish his explanation in regard to certain matters. The demanded explanation was duly tendered by the petitioner. However, eventually the annual increment of the petitioner was stopped for a period of three months. Later on, on tie date 21-8-1967, the petitioner's service was terminated by the respondent. According to the petitioner's version of the facts he then field an application (No. 36 of 1968) in this Court under section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1969, which is no longer in force as it was repealed by the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968. The Court accepted that application of the petitioner and ordered that he should be re-instated in service and paid all the emoluments that had accrued to him. The respondent, i.e. the Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Lahore, then filed an appeal against the decision of the then Industrial Court before the then West Pakistan Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi. That Tribunal announced its decision to the effect that the petitioner should be re-instated in service as already ordered by the Industrial Court concerned, but the Tribunal further decided that a show-cause notice ought to be communicated to the petitioner by the respondent along with a copy of the enquiry officer's report and after the petitioner's reply to it had Seen obtained lay the Road Transport Corporation, a fresh decision should be recorded by that Corporation, and the petitioner should be paid for the period immediately following his dismissal only if he was found to be innocent. The petitioner has also submitted that on the date 2-9-1970 he was re-instated in service by the respondent and a second show-cause notice was communicated to him which was not accompanied by the enquiry 'officer's report but was accompanied by a copy of the report dated 31-8-1967. The petitioner sent a reply to, that show-cause notice, in which he described it as being barred by time and also denounced the report dated 31-8-67 as a fabricated document and prayed that he might be re- instated in service. Nevertheless, on the date 5-9-1970 the District Manager of the Government Transport Service, Lyallpur again dismissed the petitioner on the ground 'that his work had not been found to be satisfactory, The petitioner has concluded his application with the prayer that the Road Transport Corporation might be ordered by this Court to re-instate the petitioner in service and to pay him all the emoluments that have fallen due to him with effect from the date 21-8-1967 until the date 2-9-1970 when he was re-instated in service.
2. A reply to the petitioner's complaint was filed on behalf of the respondent on the date 1-1-1971 in this Court. In that reply the respondent advanced four fundamental objections against the complaint, which were worded as follow:- "(i) The petitioner is not a worker in the meaning of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Moreover, he was appointed on regular pay in the scale of Rs. 150-3-165 and was never engaged on hire or reward.
(ii) He did not submit any application as required under section 18 (a) of this Ordinance.
(iii) He was neither an office-bearer of any Trade Union nor he was dismissed for his Trade Union activities.
(iv) The petitioner has not been deprived of any benefits accruing to him under this Ordinance."
3. The respondent also sought to contradict, some of the statements of fact made by the petitioner in his complaint.
4. I have heard the arguments of the petitioner and also the counter-arguments of the respondent's representative.
5. It is, indeed, a fact that any bus driver who receives monthly salary from the Road Transport Corporation cannot be deemed to be a workman within the meaning of that term as defined in section 2(1) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
6. Ordinance, 1968, in the following terms :- "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."
7. The respondent has rightly contended that the petitioner was never engaged as a driver on either hire or reward. Furthermore, a bus driver does not perform any skilled, or unskilled manual or clerical work. The expression manual work denotes any sort of physical labour directly connected with the process of production of some manufactured physical product in an industrial establishment. It stands to reason that the Road Transport Corporation is not an industrial establishment within the meaning attached to that expression in clause (f) of section 2 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. On the other hand it is extremely problematical whether the Punjab Road Transport Corporation can be described as a commercial establishment within the definition expounded in section 2(b) of the same Ordinance. Since the petitioner/complainant Manga Khan was employed only as a bus driver in the Government Transport Service, Lyallpur, on a monthly salary, therefore, he cannot be to be any sort of workman who might be entitled to institute any complaint in this Labour Court under Standing Order No. 18(b) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Consequently, no complaint lies against the respondent's order regarding the petitioner-complainant's dismissal from service. Even if the petitioner had succeeded in establishing the fact that he was a workman yet, since he has not claimed to be an office-bearer of any Trade Union, therefore; in view of the proviso to Standing Order No. 18(b) of the above- mentioned Ordinance, he would still have been debarred from instituting this complaint. As far the question whether or not the respondent has deprived the petitioner from any benefits accruing to him under the above--mentioned Ordinance it is sufficient to remark that since the petitioner was not a workman in the legal sense of that term hence he was not entitled to any benefits whatsoever under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
8. Ordinance, 1968.
9. For the above-recorded reasons this complaint of the petitioner/complainant Manga Khan ex- driver, Government Transport Service, Lyallpur, is dismissed. No appeal lies against this decision of the Punjab Labour Court, Central Zone, Lahore in view of the provisions of Clause (c) of Standing Order No. 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
10. Ordinance, 1968 read with the provisions of subsection (4) of section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, wherein it has been declared explicitly that all decisions, of a Labour Court shall be final and shall not be called in question in any manner by or before any Court or other authority.