' The decision dated 9th June, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 8, Bahawalpur has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that he was not a workman.
2. The appellant was appointed as store-keeper vide appointment order Exh. R. 1, dated 7th July, 1981. His first posting was at Dunyapur. Thereafter, he was transferred frequently to many places and lastly he was transferred from Larkana to Rahim Yar Khan on 23rd October, 1983. R. W. 1 said that the appellant had been appointed as Store Supervisor on 9th July, 1981 but this statement is untrue. No other appointment order except R. 1, dated 7th July, 1981, was produced, whereby the appellant may have been appointed initially or afterwards as Supervisor. Vide Exh. R. 1 the appellant was appointed as Store- Keeper and not as Supervisor. The oral statement of R. W. 1 thus stands controverted, by Exh. R. 1 the document produced by the respondent. The learned lower Court has remarked that the appellant gave his duties performed by him at Dunyapur and did not say what were his duties when he was terminated. Since all the time the (appellant worked as Store-Keeper, so he performed the same duties which fie had been performing at Dunyapur. Even this is not correct that the duties disclosed by the appellant were those that he performed at Dunyapur. He did not say that he performed these duties only at Dunyapur. When he was transferred to Rahim Yar Khan for the last time, he did not do any work because as stated by him, he was confined in a room and was released when he acceded to the demand of payment of Rs, 6,000. So lastly he worked at Larkana and R. W. 1 said that there the appellant used to himself make entries in the book of the stores. No doubt, R. W. 1 said that at Larkana the appellant had a helper but he did not say which work the helper used to do. Since admittedly, the appellant made entries of goods received in the stores and the ones despatched from there, he was doing clerical work. There is not an iota of evidence that even the appellant supervised the working of any person subordinate to him. R. W. 1 said that the duty of the appellant was to supervise the stores. Supervision of stores is quite different from supervising the working of other employees. Since neither the appellant was ever appointed as supervisor, nor he ever supervised the working of any person, he was for all purposes a worker and does not come within exception (b) of section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The learned lower Court has wrongly adjudged the appellant as a non- workman.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision so far as it has declared the appellant as a non-workman, the case is remanded for decision on merits.