' The revision captioned above gives information that the order dated 21-1-1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan is wrong and improper.
2. The petitioner made a miscellaneous application before the learned lower Court for the dismissal of the grievance petition on the ground that the respondent was a dismissed person and thus was not a workman. While dismissing that application the learned lower Court has held that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies to the petitioner. For holding so the learned lower Court has relied upon a decision of this Tribunal dated 29-5-1984.
3. It has been argued that the ruling of this Court has been wrongly applied by the learned lower Court. In reality this Tribunal did not hold in Appeal No, FD/119/Punjab decided on 29-5-1984 that Standing Orders Ordinance was applicable to the petitioner establishment. The question involved in the said appeal was whether the employee in that case was covered by the definition, of workman given in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. While holding that he was covered by the definition, it was also remarked that he was covered by the definition of workman given in section 2(1) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. By it I did not mean that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was applicable. No such point was under discussion in the said case nor it was decided. Since according to the duties performed by the employee in that case, he was covered by the definition of workman given in both the Ordinances, therefore, it was held so. The point, therefore, that the Standing Orders Ordinance applies or not is to be independently decided by the learned lower Court. So far as application for interim injunction is concerned, the same has not been disposed of by the impugned order, rather the learned lower Court has invited evidence. With these observations, the revision is disposed of.