' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.--This petition is directed against the order dated 23-2-1981 passed by respondent No, 2 in Appeal No, KAR-163 of 1981, whereby the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside the order dated 19-2-1981 passed by the learned Vth Sind Labour Court at Karachi.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner was employed as a steno-typist by respondent No, 1 on 8-12-1973. He was promoted as Administrative Officer on 13-1- 1975. He remained as such till the time his services were terminated on 22-2-1979 on the ground that his services were no longer required. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above action of respondent No, 1 after serving grievance notice filed an application under section 25-A of the I.R.O.
1969, (hereinafter referred to as the I.R.0.), which was resisted by respondent No, 1 inter alia on the ground that petitioner was not a workman in terms of subsection (i) of section 2 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. However, the learned Labour Court after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties allowed the above application and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner with all back benefits. Respondent No, 1 being aggrieved by the above order filed aforesaid appeal which was allowed by learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order, has filed the present petition.
3. In support of the above petition, Mr. Raja Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the learned Labour Court on the basis of the proper appraisal of evidence had rightly concluded that the termination was illegal as it was a mala fide act. He has further submitted that the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal was not justified in reversing the finding of the learned Labour Court particularly after recording evidence of an additional witness, who was not examined by respondent No, 1 before the Labour Court.
4. In furtherance of his above submission he has referred to the order of the learned Labour Court, particularly the reasoning given therein. He has also invited our attention to the fact that the additional witness Saeed Akhtar Ansari, who was examined by the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal was unable to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his statement that the petitioner was provided a clerk, chowkidar, a cook, a car and a driver. In this regard it may be pertinent to refer to the relevant portion of Exh. 3-F which contain the duties of the petitioner, which he was to perform, which reads as follows:- "Experience 15 years
(a) 12 years prior to NC as follows. - General Administration. - Commercial work including import of machinery items. - Office management. - Sales promotion. - Advertising and public relations.
(b) About 3 years in NC Secretrial assistance to M.D. Sites Mobilization work assistance to PMS including security arrangements, admn. Work, Transport programming , protocol work for Romanian Specialists, liaison with Government authorities including arrangement of visas, exit permits, residential accommodation, hiring of furniture and fitting, bungalows, medical care, etc. Etc. ' If the above duties are to be read with the statement of the above additional witness, Mr. Saeed Akhtar Ansari, in our view, the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of the definition of workman given in clause (1) of section 2 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. It is true that it is not the designation of a person which determine his status as to being a workman or holding a managerial post, the criterion is the duties which are to be performed by him. In the instant case not only the designation of the petitioner was of an Administrative Officer but the duties which were assigned to him are not the duties which can be said to be performed by a workman. We see no reason to disbelieve the above additional witness examined by the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal. According to him the petitioner was provided a clerk, a Chowkidar, a cook, a car and a driver.
5. It was also contended by Mr. Raja Qureshi that as a matter of fact the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal filled in the lacuna by examining the above additional witness. In our view, the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal has the power to examine additional witness in case it considers it just and proper. The above view has been taken in a number of cases decided inter alia by this Court.
6. We are inclined to hold that the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal being an appellate Court was entitled to take the view found favour with it on the basis of the material available before it, which cannot be interferred with in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.