' The two appeals captioned above arise from the decisions dated 18th March, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, whereby the two grievance petitions- one for rein-.Statement and the other for the recovery of dues- were dismissed on the sole ground that the appellant was not a workman. As a common question decided by the learned lower Court is involved in the two appeals, they are being decided together through this single judgment.
2. No objection was raised by the respondent in any of the petitions brought by the appellant that the latter was not a workman. It appears that since the appellant led evidence on the point, therefore, the learned lower Court entertained the plea during arguments. The respondents did not lead any evidence on the point but the evidence produced by the appellant and probably for the reason that no such plea had been taken by them in the written statement. The point is very important touching the jurisdiction of the Court, therefore, it appears necessary to allow the parties to lead elaborate evidence regarding the duties of the appellant. I, therefore, accept the appeals and setting aside the decisions of the learned lower Court, remand the cases allowing the respondents to amend written statements to the extent of raising the plea on the question of workman. I The learned lower Court should after affording proper opportunity to the parties to produce evidence on the point and also on the whole case, decide the cases afresh.