' The instant appeal is directed against the order of the Sind Labour Court No,11 at Karachi who, on 19-11-1983, dismissed the grievance application of the appellant, Muhammad Jamal.
2. The brief facts are that appellant was appointed by respondent No,1, Messrs Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi, on 12-5-1982, as a Commercial Officer on a monthly salary of Rs,3,000. The appellant was assigned such office and outdoor duties from time to time as consisted of correspondence. Accounting matters, staff pay rolls, contacts with banks, cashing litigating matters and miscellaneous other matters. The respondents Nos, 2 and 3 also assigned work to him with a further remuneration of Rs,1,000 per month. The two respondents Nos, 2 and 3 did not appear and they were shown as ex parte. On 22-11-1982, the services of the appellant were terminated by respondent No,1 and' he was told not to come from 23-11-1982.
3. A grievance petition was filed in which the evidence of appellant was adduced and so also the evidence of respondent No,1 was adduced.
4. The first respondent filed the legal objections and the reply statement. Legal objections were to the effect that the appellant was not a workman as he did not perform any skilled, unskilled, manual or clerical work and was working as an officer which involved managerial and administrative functions and duties. The respondent No,1 never employed 20 or more workmen in their establishment in Karachi and since the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, were not applicable to them, the appellant had no right guaranteed or secured to him under the said Standing Order Ordinance and could not approach the Labour Court under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969. The respondent No,1 was a Public Limited Company and had no concern whatsoever with the second and third respondents. The duties of the appellant were assigned to him in writing by the Director of the respondent No,1 and that the appellant used to call candidates for interviews for the post of Administrative Officer, Accountant, Accounts Officer and other posts besides issuing office orders to the staff member charge-sheets, warning letters and transfer letters to the staff and workers. The appellant also had powers to sanction leave to the staff members, to deal independently with the Employees Social Security Institution and was also acting as Manager of Purchase and Sales Department. The respondent No,1 denied the fact that they had asked the appellant to work for the second and third respondents and that he was promised a salary of Rs,1,000 per month.
5. The appellant appeared in person while Mr. S.Zamirul Hassan, representative, for the respondent No,l. Arguments were heard.
6. The contention of the appellant is that he was a workman and he was working as a clerk doing so many clerical jobs such as correspondence etc. This contention is rebutted by the affidavit filed by the respondent No,l. The respondent has produced a letter of appointment, dated 7-8-1982, which deals the duties to be performed by the appellant. Apart from the above, the respondent produced certain documents alongwith their reply statement and affidavit in evidence to show that the appellant was issuing letters calling candidates for interviews for the posts of Administrative Officer and Accounts Officer as well as the office orders regulating the timings of the office. Annexures "R-9 to R-12" indicate that the appellant did only managerial and administrative work. The Annexures "R-13 to R-15" show that the appellant during the course of his employment was issuing show-cause notices to the staff members of respondent No,1 and also used to issue warning letters to the members of the staff. The respondent evidence on record shows that the appellant was not a workman and he carried a salary of Rs,3,000 per month.
7. The second point raised in this case was that the employer did not engage more than 20 workmen during the preceding 12 months. This contention was raised by the respondent and it was not the plea of the appellant. In the course of the evidence, the appellant develop this to show that the employer engaged more than 20 workers. To this, the respondent No,1 produced Attendance Register for the period with effect from October, 1981 to July, 1983, Annexure "R-54" to their affidavit in evidence. The Annexure shows that during the period from October, 1981 to November, 1982, when the services of the appellant were terminated the respondent No,1 never employed 20 or more persons in their establishment. The burden of the contention of the respondent is duly discharged and it is not borne out from the evidence in this matter that the respondent No, 1 employed 20 or more workmen in their establishment.
8. After having perused the evidence on record and the impugned order I am satisfied that the grievance application of the appellant was not maintainable and it was rightly dismissed by the learned Labour Court. The appeal has no substance and is accordingly dismissed.