' This appeal arises from the decision dated 27-3-1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement was dismissed.
2. The appellant was Electrical Supervisor and his services were terminated with effect from 30-4- 1978 for the reason that he was 'no longer required'. The petition was opposed and on behalf of the respondent it was contended that the appellant was an Electrical Foreman at the time of his termination and thus he was out of the definition of workman. It was further contended that the post of Electrical Foreman held by the appellant was abolished on account of financial reasons.
The appellant did not bring on the record the termination letter received by him. On behalf of the respondent, leave applications bearing the signatures of the appellant (Exhs. R-1 to R-4) were brought on the record in which the appellant had mentioned himself as a Foreman. The applications for service of some persons (Exhs. R-10 to R-13) were also brought on the record, which were recommended by the appellant for appointment as electrician. In his statement the appellant admitted that seven persons were working under him. The statement of Shaukat Ali, Manager, shows that in 1973 the appellant was transferred to Unit No,1 under the control of the said witness as Electrical Foreman and that the appellant was the head of the branch. The appellant in his statement stated that the respondent Mills abolished the post of Foreman and terminated his services even though he was working as electrical supervisor and not as foreman. This shows that in reality the post of foreman was terminated. So far as this question is concerned whether the appellant was a foreman or electrical supervisor, his leave applications and the statement of the Manager amply proved that he was working as foreman. The appellant did not say anything about his duties which actually he had been performing. The name of the post is not to be considered, but it is to be seen what duties the employee concerned is performing to find out whether he is covered by the definition of workman or not. The appellant admitted that seven persons used to work under him. It is thus clear that he was supervising their work. Since he did not say that he had been working with his own hands also, there is no evidence that he was doing any manual work.
Admittedly, his pay was Rs,1,052. Since the appellant was a Foreman, the onus was upon him to show that in spite of holding such a post, he was doing manual work. Admittedly a foreman is above the post of electrical supervisor. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited 1973 PLC 358, in which the appellant was declared as workman, but it has not been shown whether even at that time he was working as foreman. According to the statement of P.W. 1, in 1973 bifurcation was made and two units were performed in the respondent mills and the appellant was transferred to unit No, 1 as foreman. In the authority cited by the learned counsel it is mentioned that the services of the appellant had been terminated on 18-4-1972. Since in 1973 the appellant was made foreman, therefore, when previously he was terminated, he was not a foreman. The authority, therefore, is not helpful to him. If he had produced evidence that he was doing manual work, even as foreman, it could be held that he was covered by the definition of workman given in section 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. He is not covered by the definition of workman given in section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 also, because in the absence of evidence to the contrary and according to the material on the record, he was head of the section having seven persons working under him and thus was discharging supervisory duties. His pay as stated by him was Rs,1,052 i,e,, more than Rs,800, therefore, he falls within the exception (b) of section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The learned lower court, therefore, rightly held him as not a workman.
3. As admittedly at the time of termination the appellant was a foreman and as admittedly the post of foreman was abolished, the services of the appellant were rightly terminated. He has led no evidence to show that there was available any post of electrical supervisor in the establishment, which was being held by any of his Juniors. This is also noteworthy that he has not claimed that instead of being terminated, he should have been reverted to a lower post. In these circumstances the impugned decision of the learned lower court appears to be correct. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.