' The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 21-2-1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed.
2. The only ground on which the grievance petition of the appellant has been dismissed is that he is not a workman as defined in the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. In the written statement no such plea was taken by the respondent, so the appellant, being unaware of it, did not produce evidence with regard to his duties. Needless to say that mere designation is not the deciding factor, whether an employee is or is not a workman only on the basis of duties the point of workman can be determined. The Courts have to record findings only on the points in controversy between the parties. As no plea was taken in the written statement that the appellant was not a workman, no decision could be recorded on it. Learned lower Court has relied upon 1983 PLC 216 and 1983 PLC 652 but the rulings cannot be applied unless there is evidence on the record and nature of duties and facts are the same. As the learned lower Court has not recorded any finding on the merits of the case, the case 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 back for decision on merit. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.