The respondent was a Chowkidar in the appellant Press. The allega--tion agnaist him was that 9n the night of 16th July, 1978 while he was on duty he was found bringing into the premises Wagon No. LED-3887 belonging to the appellant in damaged condition. The wagon had been left in the evening in the premises in normal and good condition. The respondent was charge-sheeted, an enquiry held against him and he ulti--mately dismissed from service.
2. The enquiry was improperly made. The evidence of the pro--secution witnesses recorded in preliminary enquiry was red out in the subsequent enquiry held in the presence of the respondent without record--ing the evidence of the witnesses and the respondent was asked to cross- examine the witnesses if he so liked. This was illegal. They witnesses should have been re- examined in the presence of the respon--dent. The other defect is that Nazar Muhammad, the only material witness, was not produced during the enquiry held in the presence of the respondent. It was this witness who is alleged to have seen the ,g respondent bringing into the premises of the printing press wagon of the appellant in damaged condition. Since Nazar Muhammad was nor examined, the respondent had no opportunity to cross-examine him. The evidence of this witness re-recorded in the preliminary enquiry could not, therefore, be used.
3. But the case of the respondent fails on the other ground which is that he does not come within the ambit of the definition of workman given in section 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
He belongs to the security guard and there is abundant case law to the effect that the members of the Security Guard do not fall within the definition of `work--man'. Chowkidars belong to the category of watch and ward. They do not do any manual work. Their duty is only to remain present at night to guard the premises and things lying there against thieves and trespassers but they are not required to do any manual work. The respon--dent did not say anything about his duties. He did not say that besides remaining present at night at the premises he had been doing some other work also with his own hands. His statement is that he was a Chowkidar. So he is, not covered by the definition of workman and thus Labour Court has no jurisdiction.
4. As upshot of the discussion made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent.