' The decision, dated 31st July, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be re-instated in service without back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that he made advances of loans beyond the advance limit and did not adjust the same and in this way caused loss to the Bank. It was contended by the appellant that the respondent was not a workman. The respondent admitted in cross-examination that five employees were under him but he had no power of hire or fire or even to grant leave to them. The duties stated in evidence are those which were being performed by the respondent when he was Manager, Shujabad and had made unauthorised advances. Cause of grievance arose to the respondent when he was dismissed. So it is to be seen whether he was covered by the definition of workman when he was dismissed. When an employee is punished, he has to consider what is the forum for him to challenge the order of dismissal. If at that time his duties were such that, he is not covered by the definition of workman, he has to challenge the dismissal order in a Civil Court by claiming damages. If, according to him, duties performed at the time of dismissal are that of a workman, he is entitled to come to a Labour Court. Since the parties did not lead any evidence about the duties of the respondent at the time he was punished, it is not possible to decide if he was a workman on not. ##TW##The case, the fore, is liable to be remanded.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for decision after affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on the point o '' duties of the respondent at the time he was dismissed. The parties will be at liberty to produce more evidence if they so like, on the other points as well. , case remanded.