' The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 23rd January, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court-No, 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted.
2. The claim of the respondent was based upon the settlement Exh. P. 14 and circular, dated 7th March, 1982. The respondent claimed that he be allowed special allowance at Rs, 20 p. m. And increase in his pay at Rs, 30 P. M. With effect from 1st January, 1982.
3. The only point argued before me is that the respondent is not a workman as defined in section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction.
The respondent is Assistant Sales Promotion Officer. His pay including allowance is Rs, 870.
According to the evidence produced by the respondent, the duty of Assistant Sales Promotion Officer is to go to shop to shop with the sales- man to sell the goods of the company and to promote the sale of the goods. Cash memos. Are also issued by the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant has made reference to the cross-examination of P. W. 2, wherein he stated that when he was A.S.P.
0. 11 sales depots were under his management, that in one depot there was one salesman, one cartman and one Chowkidar and he looked after their performance, but on further cross- examination he denied that the nature of his duties of the A.S.P.O. Were supervisory or managerial.
P. W. 2 did not say that the respondent was also looking after the performance of salesmen and cartmen. The appellant Company may have specially invested P. W. 2 during his tenure of service the powers of looking after the work of salesmen and cartmen, but unless there is evidence that the respondent too had those powers, he cannot be declared as a supervisor. He does not come within the definition of workman as defined in section 2 (i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 but that definition is not relevant to the case, because the respondent does not claim any right guaranteed by the said Ordinance. He claims rights on the basis of a settlement. Provision of raising an industrial dispute that culminates in settlement or award is made in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, so the definition of workman given in the -said Ordinance only is relevant. The evidence produced by the respondent stands unrebutted as the appellant did not care to produce any evidence in spite of getting some adjournments. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the evidence was present and in the interim orders, dated 5th October, 1982 and 6th November, 1982 it was wrongly recorded that no evidence was brought. Presumption of correctness is attached to the Court's proceedings. Lawyers are officers of the Courts and it does not benefit them to lay wrong aspersions against them. Evidence of the appellant is alleged to be present on 5th October, 1982 but application for setting aside the said order and giving opportunity to the appellant to produce evidence was given on 1st December, 1982. The silence of two months is indicative of the fact that in reality no evidence of the respondent was present on 5th October, 1982. There was no hindrance for the Court to adjourn the case if it wanted to do soon account of the non-availability of the counsel of the respondent and there was no need to wrongly record that the evidence was not present. It appears that the application, dated 1st December, 1982 was not brought to the notice of the learned Presiding Officer, therefore, he could not record any order to dispose of it. A party that seeks indulgence of the Court should come forward with true facts and not to lay wrong aspersions against it. As there was no evidence in rebuttal, the learned lower Court was justified in relying upon the evidence produced by the respondent and holding him as a workman.
4. The case has not been argued before me on merits, nor any other point has been argued.
5. As a result of the observations made, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.