1. This appeal emanates from the decision dated 14th December, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, where--by the grievance petition of the appellant for his re- instatement in service was dismissed on the ground that he was not covered by the definition of work--man. The appellant was a Foreman. The allegation against him for which he was dismissed from service was that he had refused to work in the night shift. The plea of the appellant was that since he had worked in the day shift, he would not work in the night shift. Duty roster P-9 was produced relying upon which the learned lower Court held that the appellant was not covered by the definition of workman. The Duty Roster has been reproduced by the learned lower Court in his judgment and the same may not be repeated here. The duties given in P-9 clearly show that the main duty of the appellant were not to do any manual work. In 1971 PLC a Foreman of Bata Shoe Company has been held to be not a `workman'. In view of the duties given in P-9 and the authority mention--ed above, the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to advance any effective arguments to show that the appellant is covered by the defini--tion of `workman'.
2. As a result of the observations made above I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.