NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.--The petitioner in this case was working as Assistant Traffic Manager in Sind Road Transport Corporation. Some time in February, 1977 Karachi Transport Corporation was incorporated and according to the petitioner this company took over the traffic operations from the Sind Road Transport Corporation in so far as Karachi was concerned. According to the petitioner his services were retained by the Karachi Transport Corporation but later on he was arbitrarily declared as surplus while other employees who were juniors to him were retained and the petitioner was directed to report for duty to the Sind Road Transport Corporation. The Sind Road Transport Corporation later-on took the stand that petitioners services were terminated on 20-8- 1977. According to the petitioner, his services were unlawfully terminated. He filed a petition under section 25-A (4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance against Road Transport Corporation and Karachi Transport Corporation seeking an order from Labour Court to reinstate the petitioner with full back benefits. By order dated 8-4-1980, the learned Labour Court II Karachi dismissed the application of the petitioner as not maintainable. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal but the appeal was also dismissed by order dated 22-5-1980. The orders of the Labour Court and the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal are challenged in the present Constitutional petition. We have heard Mr. Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Talmiz Burney for respondent No.1 (S.R.T.C) and Mir Raza Hussain Hydri, Advocate for respondent No.2 (K.T.C).
2. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the case of the petitioner definition of workman given in section 2 (xxxviii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 is applicable. On a question from the Court learned counsel for the petitioner replied that there has been no violation of any provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 but the grievance of the petitioner is that his services have been unlawfully terminated in violation of Standing Order 12 (3). As the grievance is based on rights conferred by the Standing Orders) Ordinance, definition of workman given in section 2 (1) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 will be applicable in the case of the petitioner. We may refer to a decision by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Opal Laboratories Limited v. Moin-ul-Islam 1983 PLC 509, in which judgment, after considering the entire relevant case law on the subject, the view was taken that where the claim of an employee is based on violation of Standing Orders, definition in section 2 (1) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 will be applicable. We also subscribe to the same view and we have not been persuaded to take a different view and apply the definition of workman given in the Industrial Ordinance, 1969 in the case of the petitioner.
3. The learned Labour Appellate Tribunal has referred to the duty chart for the Assistant Traffic Manager according to which the duties of the Assistant Traffic Manager are as follows: "(i) To assist the Traffic Manager in matters connected with the attending of Breakdowns. Accidents and preparation of traffic returns and duty roster of traffic staff.
(ii) To deal with public complaints and suggestions in regard to timing bus stops, traffic irregularities, bus shelters and submit his finding of traffic manager.
(iii) Supervision and surprise. Checks of the work of the Yard Master. Assistant Yard Master, Chief Inspectors, Inspectors, etc.
(iv) To ensure that road tax of all the vehicles are paid and tax token exhibited by all the buses before the due date.
(v) To make suggestions in the light of his experience and knowledge of the operational area as would improve the operation of the Board Services.
(vi) In case of an A.T.M. Holding charge of a sub-office, his normal duties shall also includes: -
(a) General Administration, control and supervision of the sub-office concerned.
(b) The proper supervision of the stores, workshop staff and effect of a workshop is also attached to the sub-office.
(c) To ensure that the premises are kept clean and tidy all the time.
(d) To attend all correspondence work connected with the sub-office.
(vii) Shall be responsible for any other duties assigned."
On the basis of this duty chart, learned Labour Appellate Tribunal confirmed the findings of the Labour Court that the petitioner, was not employed to perform any clerical or manual work, whether skilled or unskilled. We find no illegality in the view taken by the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal. On the basis of the B duty chart for the Assistant Traffic Manager and other evidence on record, the two Tribunals have arrived at the finding that the they petitioner was not a workman under section 2 (1) of the Standing Orders Ordinance and this finding is not liable to interference: -
4. As a result, Constitutional Petition No.D-1470/80 is dismissed but with no order as to costs.