' This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 6-1-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for reinstatement has been dismissed on the grounds that he is not covered by the definition of workman, that he did not implead the employer as party and that the misconduct against him had been established.
2. The allegation for which the appellant was dismissed from service was of absence without leave for more than 10 days. So far as the finding of the learned lower Court on the point of workman is concerned, it appears to be correct. The appellant did not lead any evidence with regard to his duties. He did not touch this point in his statement. Even the witnesses examined by him did not say anything with regard to his duties. R-1 deposed that the appellant had not to do any manual work or to lift any weight. He also said that his duty was to guard and not to open or close the door of the gate. In cross-examination he repelled back the suggestion that the appellant used to work at the gate. The learned lower Court has thus rightly found that the appellant failed to prove that he was a workman.
3. The finding of the learned lower Court that the petition is not against the employer is without any force. No doubt, in the petition neither the name of the A employer nor of the mills in which he was employed is given but since the petition was contested by the employer, it cannot be said that the employer was not all party.
4. So far as merits of the case are concerned, the order of dismissal as well as the finding of the learned lower Court that the misconduct was duly proved are wrong. According to the prosecution evidence and the inquiry report, the case of the respondent was that the appellant remained absent without leave but the charge against him was that during his duty hours a ceiling fan was stolen and in spite of the fact that he had identified the thieves, he did not make any inquiry from them which resulted in the loss of the ceiling fan. There is no charge of absence.
5. Since the appellant failed to establish that he was covered by the definition of workman, his grievance petition rightly stands dismissed.
6. Not finding any force in the appeal, the same is dismissed.