DECISION The appellant, who was employed as a Serang/Head Watchman in the establishment of M/s. Jalbohy & Company, the respondents herein, is said to have been orally dismissed from service on 29-7-1980, without any notice enquiry. The appellant preferred a grievance petition against his dismissal from service before the learned Labour Court in which he alleged that he was a permanent workman of the respondent and that his dismissal was the result of the annoyance felt by the respondents when he made a demand for payment to him of the cost of living allowance of Rs. 40 p.m. Sanctioned by Government. The respondents resisted the appellant s grievance petition on the-grounds, firstly that the appellant, being a watch--man, was not entitled to prefer a grievance petition against his removal from service and secondly, that the appellant was not a permanent emp--loyee but a casual and daily worker. The learned Labour Court up--held both these contentions of the respondent and has dismissed the appel--lant's grievance petition. Aggrieved by this decision the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. I have heard the appellant, who has appeared in person. Although in his grievance petition as well as in his affidavit filed before the learned Labour Court the Appellant has claimed that he was highly skilled in his work and was performing manual and clerical work, he was given no parti-- culars of any such work performed by him. In his cross-examination before the learned Labour Court he has admitted that he was employed in the res--pondent-establishment as Head Watchman, that his duty consisted of keep--ing watch at ships where he was posted by the respondents and that he was paid for the days that he worked as such. It has been the consistent view of this Tribunal that a person who approaches a Labour Court for redress against the termination of service under clause (3) of^ Standing Order 12 toad with section 25-A, I.R.O., must establish that he is a workman as defined in the Standing Orders. Likewise it has been held by this Tribunal in the case of Noor Hussain v. Manager (Personnel), Pakistan Machine Tools Factory Ltd.
Decided on 6-5-1932, and Rab Nawaz v. Rice Export Cor--poration of Pakistan (Appeal KAR-273 of 1981), that a watchman, a security guard or Chowkidar, simpliciter who is not performing or required to perform manual or clerical work, is not a workman under the Standing Orders and is not entitled to file a grievance petition under clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25-A, I.R.O. In Constitution Peti--tion No. 757 of 1980, Division Bench of the Karachi High Court upheld the above view and observed that a chowkidar simpliciter is not covered by the definition of workman given in the Standing Orders unless he can show that he was performing any duty which involved work of the nature mention--ed in the definition of workman in section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Indus--trial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. It was further observed in that case that though the petitioner had made certain averments as to his duties but he was unable to prove the same and, there fore, he could not be said to fall within the definition of workman as give in the said Ordinance. In the instant case also though the appellant he claimed that he was performing manual and clerical duties he has not out failed to establish his claim but he has not even mentioned the nature o his duties and has admitted that he was required to perform the duties of Head Watchman.
3. In view of the above position I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine.