1. Industrial Relation Ordinace 1969-S. 25 A -Petitioner a steno-typist promoted as Administrative Officer-His service Terminated-Being aggrieved petitioner serving notice u/s 25-A of IRO 1969- Resporident No.1 resisting the same thereby contending that the petitioner was not a workman in terms of S.2(l) of the standing Orders Ordinance-However, the Labour Court allowing the application ordered the re-instatement of the petitioner with all the back benefits-Sind Labour appellate Tribunal reversing the same-Petitioner challenging it and urging that the Labour Court below on the basis of the proper appraisal of evidence had rightly concluded that the termination of service was illegal and mala fide-Held that the Sind Labour appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the petitioner did not fall within the definition of workman-It is- -Further held-True that it is not the designation of a person which determined his status-The criterion is the duties which are to be performed by him-The view finding favour with the appellate Tribunal on the basis of the materialavaiLahle it cannot be interfered with in exercise of Sauud JMs^^roiMu^fcmOTefi6nt^P8fmon dismissed.#tbs(Paras, 2 4 & 6)#theAdvocate High Court ^Pb.)Office fKOrMih 'Ptetitiohet^Vtaja Qureshi, Advocate.#tbsePSr the Respondent: Latifur-Rehman Khan Survery, Advocate.Hospital Roadh ^fe'ce'^8^9^ember' 1988'#the\/j. A, HnUS-Civil HJUDGMENTAJMAL MIAN, CJ.(l)-- This petition is directed against the order dated 23.8.1981 passed by respondent No.2 in appeal No.KAR-163/1981, 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 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 IRO, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the IRO), which was resisted by respondent NO.1 inter alia on the ground that petitioner was not a workman in terms of sub-section (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. Being aggrieved by the above order filed aforesaid appear 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 reversion 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 furtherehce 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 additionalwitness Saeed Akhtar Ansari, who was examined by the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal was unable to produce any documentry 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 Ex.3/F which contain the duties of the petitioner, which he was to perform, which reads as follows:-"Experience 15 yearsa) 12 years prior to NC as follows.General AdministrationCommercial 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 RomanianSpecialists, liaison with Government authorities including arrangement of visas, exist permits, residentialaccommodation, hiring of furniture and fitting, bunglows, medical care etc. Ect.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 (I) 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 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 interfered with in exereise of Constitutional jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.