DECISION This is an appeal filed by Messrs Panther Industries Ltd., Karachi, against the impugned judgment order, dated 17-4-1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. III, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, under section 25-A, I.R.0., 1969.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent entered in the service of the appellant establishment on 2-5-1983, on the post of Technical & Purchasing Officer. That, according to the terms and conditions of service specified in the appointment letter, the appellant establishment was under legal obligation to allow continuity of service of the respondent for a period of two years from the date of the appointment and that the nature of duties to be performed by him were technical-cum-manual and clerical, nature. That, on 14-1-1984, while performing the duties, the respondent met with an accident and sustained injuries, therefore, he remained under treatment upto 31-3-1984. That the respondent submitted medical certificate duly verified by an Executive Director of the appellant establishment that the respondent had met with an accident on 14-1-1984, while performing his purchase duty of the company. That the respondent could not attend the duties and as such applied for leave and when he submitted Joining Report alongwith the Fitness Certificate, he was not allowed do so. That in order to avoid themselves from legal obligations, the appellant establishment started taking of disciplinary actions against the respondent and staged a so-called domestic enquiry and thereby he managed to issue a dismissal order of the respondent vide letter, dated 11-10-1984. That being aggrieved with this unlawful action of the appellant establishment, the respondent submitted his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.
3. The case of the appellant establishment before the learned Labour Court was that the respondent was employed in the capacity of an Officer on a monthly remuneration of Rs.1,305 under an agreement for 24 months commencing from 1-5-1983. That the respondent was not a 'workman' under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968, therefore, he had no locus standi to approach the Labour Court under section 25- A, I.R.O., 1969, and further that, he has received all his legal dues, so he was not an aggrieved workman to maintain his grievance petition under the Law. That, on merits, it was the case that the respondent remained absent from duties with effect from 15-1-1984 for more than 10 days, so a notice was sent to him by registered, A/D Post. That, thereafter a proper domestic enquiry was held against him in accordance with the principles of natural justice, therefore, in view of the findings of the enquiry officers, he was dismissed from service.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and were duly cross-examined before the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court, then allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Riaz Hussain Baloch, the learned Advocate for the appellant establishment and have carefully perused the record and proceedings. His contentions are two-fold. Firstly, he has contended that the respondent was not a 'workman' under Standing Order Ordinance, therefore he was not entitle to maintain his petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969. He based his arguments on the appointment letter, dated 2-5-1983 and has argued that the respondent was appointed on a contract for a period of two years in an officer's cadre or a monthly salary of Rs.1,305. I have carefully perused the appointment letter which is available on the record of the Labour Court. It is an admitted position that the respondent was performing his duties in accordance with the specifically mentioned terms and conditions of this appointment letter, dated 2-5-1983. It is a settled law that the nature of the duties performed by a person to determine the status whether he is a workman or otherwise. I, therefore, hold that in view of the nature of duties being performed by the respondent, he was a workman under the Law, thus, - was entitled to maintain his grievance petition before the Labour Court under section 25-A, I.R.0., 1969.
6. Secondly, it was contended that the respondent remained absent from duties without intimation for more than 10 days, therefore, he was correctly dismissed from service, after comply with all legal requirements. It is an admitted fact that the case of the respondent was that of accident and that the Enquiry Officer did not call any report from the hospital to verify if the respondent was really injured in an accident. Annexure 'D' on the record clearly establishes that the Executive Director of the appellant establishment had granted leave to the respondent in view of the medical certificate issued on account of an accident. Further, it is an admitted position that the Enquiry Officer did not examine the. Medical Officer who gave treatment to the respondent or had issued Medical Certificate to him. I, therefore, hold that in view of this material lacuna in the enquiry, the learned Labour Court has rightly held that the absence of the respondent from Pi's duties was beyond his control.
7. For the reasons, stated by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order, therefore, I maintain it. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.