' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.-The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Labour Court and the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, whereby his application under section 25-A, I. R.
0. Has been dismissed. He petitioner was employed on probation by respondent No, 3 on a consolidated salary of Rs, 1,100. He was appointed to work in any shift and to do any duty assigned to him. The petitioner joined duty on 4th March, 1981 and was confirmed by letter, dated 17th October, 1981 in the management Grade I as Accounts Officer w,e,f, 5th September, 1981. His basic salary was fixed at Rs, 850 p. m. Excluding allowances. One of the conditions was that his service was liable to be terminated on one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. On 12th December, 1981 the petitioner's service was terminated with immediate effect and he was asked to collect his dues.
The petitioner served a notice on respondent No, 3 and dissatisfied with the reply, he filed a grievance petition before the learned 3rd Labour Court, After examining the documentary and oral evidence the learned Labour Court held that the petitioner was appointed in a managerial cadre and the nature of duties performed by him were neither manual, nor clerical, and therefore, he was not a workman. The petitioner then filed appeal, which was dismissed by the impugned order. The learned Labour Tribunal has considered all the points raised by the petitioner, assessed the evidence, examined the documents and has finally confirmed the finding of the learned Labour Court. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqi the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner's duty was not supervisory and the petitioner in fact by virtue of, his duties fell within the category of workers. This contention entirely depends upon appreciation and assessment of evidence that has been produced by the parties. After taking into consideration all the facts brought on record both the Courts have come to conclusion that the petitioner was not a workman. In this regard the learned Labour Tribunal has taken note of certain salient facts namely, the manner in which the letter of appointment was issued, the fact that the petitioner used to supervise the clerks and assistants under him, the wager and the scale in which he was placed, the petitioner's own conduct that h always wrote letters to respondent No, 3 describing himself as Account Officer. The learned Tribunal has discussed the evidence at length and h; come to the conclusion which is against the petitioner. These findings facts cannot be disturbed unless the petitioner establishes that they are n based on any evidence, or certain material evidence has been excluded fromonsideration. Such points could not be established by the petition The fact that on appreciation of evidence it is possible to take a differ view from what the learned Tribunal has taken will not render the impugn order illegal or passed without lawful authority. The order of the learned Labour Tribunal does not require any interference and the petition is dismissed in limine.