' This appeal arises from the decision dated 12th December, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. The respondent also has brought cross objections claiming back benefits. This judgment will dispose of the appeal as well as cross objections together.
2. The respondent was a salesman appointed on 16th October, 1975 vide order copy Exh. P-1 with six months' probationary period. His services were terminated on 17th April, 1976 vide order (copy Exh.
P-4). The respondent challenged the order of his termination in an application under section 25-A from the acceptance of which the present appeal arises. The appellant raised two points namely that the respondent was not a workman and that no grievance notice had been served. Both the points were answered by the learned lower Court against the appellant.
3. So far as the question Of the respondent being a workman is concerned, we have to deal with the definition of workman given in section 2 (i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Salesmen of Brooke Bond Tea have not to do any work with their own hands. Their main duties are to promote sale of tea. It is the vanman who has to do manual work. He carries the stocks on the van and delivers to the customers according to the instruction of the salesman. The salesman suggests ways and means to the Company for the advancement of the business of the sale of tea. He recommends for advertisement cinema slides, films and posters. The vanman works under the instruction and supervision of the salesman. These are the duties of the salesman according to the statement of R. W.-1. The respondent deposed that his duties were given in documents Exhs. P.-5 to P.-15 but all of them do not contain his duties, except Exh. P.-8. Only the pasting of price lists on the karyana shops is to be made by the salesmen themselves. Exh. P-5 contains the duties but it does not say that duties given therein are to be performed by the salesmen themselves. The other documents Exhs. P.-5 to P.-7 contain instructions. Exh. P-11 shows that the salesmen have controlling powers. Exh. P.-12 contains instructions to keep the memos. Separate from the instructions. Exh. P-13 deals with advertisement and it nowhere suggests that posters etc. Are to be pasted and exhibited by the salesmen with their own hands. Exh. P-14 is a letter of the respondent sent to the company. It shows that the respondent delivered the posters etc. To the shopkeepers with the instruction of displaying them at their shops and did not leave the shops before the shopkeepers carried out the instructions. Exh. P-15 is the letter from the Divisional Sales Manager sent to all controllers. It is an information about a competition. The above-mentioned documents do not show that the salesmen have to do manual or clerical work. In PLD 1969 Lahore 616 a salesman of Brooke Bond Company was declared as not a workman. A salesman of Tobacco Company was declared as not a workman in PLD 1961 S. C.
403. The learned lower Court has wrongly relied upon PLD 1977 SC 237. It has been held that under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, a salesman is a workman but we are concerned with the definition of salesman given in section 2 (1) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. I, therefore, hold that the respondent was not a workman as defined in section 2 (i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
4. So far as the grievance notice is concerned, the learned lower Court has erred in relying upon A/D receipt. It does not bear the registration number and the seal of the post office. Every A/D receipt returned by a post office bears the seal of the said office. The A/D receipt, therefore, has no evidentiary value. No postal receipt was produced. I, therefore, reverse the finding of the learned lower Court on the point.
5. As a result of what has been observed above, I accept the appeal of the appellant and setting aside the order of reinstatement of the B respondent, dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent. Since the very order of reinstatement has been set aside, no question of granting back benefits to the respondent arises. So the cross-objections filed by the respondent are rejected.