' The decision, dated 11-6-1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that he had failed to establish that he was a workman.
2. Admittedly, the appellant did not lead any evidence on the point. It has been argued that the onus was upon the respondents to prove that the appellant was not a workman. The learned counsel for the appellant relies upon 1980 PLC 140. My learned predecessor held that the onus was upon the employer to prove that the employee was not a workman but he in another bank's case reported in 1979 PLC 239 held that where the employee described himself as officer Grade-II, the onus was upon him to show that he was a workman. The latter ruling is sound. When the designation is such that the employee does not appear to be a workman, the onus is upon him to prove that the duties are such that he is covered by the definition of workman. The appellant was admittedly a Manager of branch Chak No,126/15-L. R.W.2 said that he was under the appellant in the said branch. So the appellant was not a Manager by designation only, but had subordinates also. Since he was a Manager, the onus was upon him to prove that in spite of being a Manager he was covered by the definition of workman. Since he did not adduce any evidence and even did not say anything about his duties in his own statement, the presumption is that he had nothing to say effectively. The appellant, as stated by R.W.2, went on leave when he was Manager Chak No, 126/15- L and never came back. There is no evidence that he worked in some other capacity at any other station. So the duties lastly performed by him were of the Manager and thus he was not a workman. The learned lower Court, therefore, has rightly declared him as non-workman.
3. As a result, there being no force in the appeal, the same is dismissed.