ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.--This order will dispose of Civil Petition for Leave to Appeals Nos. 901 and 902 of 1988 as these raise same question.
2. The private respondents in these petitions were officers Grade III in the petitioner's Bank. In the first case after departmental proceedings, Amjad Farooq was dismissed from service on 3-11-1983.
His petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was accepted by the Presiding Officer, Punjab' Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala on 12-1-1985, order of dismissal from service was set aside and it was directed that he-be reinstated in service with all the back benefits. The petitioner-Bank filed an appeal before the Punjab Appellate Tribunal, Lahore. On merits the order was upheld but it was observed that "As 1983 PLC 1053 is to be followed and as the said ruling has not become final, the appeal is accepted and the grievance petition is directed to be returned to the respondent for presentation to the proper forum,. On the condition that if the Supreme Court holds that the employees removed from service before they brought the grievance petition are covered by the definition of workman, the impugned decision of the learned lower Court shall stand confirmed and the present appeal dismissed". This is vide order dated 20-9-1986.
The petitioner-Bank challenged this order in the Lahore High Court vide Writ Petition No.2685 of 87 which was dismissed in default. Restoration application was also dismissed. The petitioner-Bank, again, filed Writ Petition 2842 of 1988. During the course of hearing reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Iftikhar Ahmad and others v. President National Bank of Pakistan and others PLD 1988 SC 53. The learned Judge dealing with the petition referred to the observation in the judgment that inquiry into facts is required to determine whether the employee was worker/workman or not. But in the case in hand, this does not help the petitioner-Bank as "the Labour Court as well as the Labour Appellate Tribunal went into the question whether the respondent was a workman or not and on the basis of material produced by the parties came to the conclusion that Amjad Farooq respondent was a workman and that he was dismissed from service by an officer who was not the competent authority. Learned counsel during the arguments was not able to show that these findings of the Appellate Tribunal suffer from any jurisdictional error. Moreover, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction I would not like to embark upon the appraisal of evidence for purpose of rendering the finding of fact different from the one recorded by the Tribunal." The petition was found without merit and dismissed in limine. This is vide order dated 28-6-1988. The petitioner-Bank seeks leave to appeal vide -C.P. No. 901/88.
3. In the second case, after departmental proceedings, Mushtaq Ahmad was dismissed from service vide letter dated 24-5-1982. He filed petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala found that service of charge-sheet and order of enquiry was by an incompetent authority. Order of dismissal was passed by the Head Office, Karachi on 27-4-1982 before the show-cause notice was issued to the employee on 4-5-1982, and that the employee was a workman. He accepted the petition, ordered the reinstatement with the observation that "In case Bank management feels that any financial loss has been occasioned to the Bank by the act or omission of the petitioner, a fresh departmental enquiry may be ordered and carried out. During fresh inquiry the management ought to prove the causing of financial loss to the institution by the act/omission of the accused employee." This is vide order dated 16-12-1984. It was challenged by the petitioner-Bank through Writ Petition No. 567 of 1985. The learned Judge held that although the respondent was designated as Grade III Officer yet in view of the precedents, "the learned Labour Court, on the basis of evidence available on the record, was justified to find the respondent a workman within the meaning of the Ordinance".
Further, that "no loss to the Bank has been occasioned by the respondent, charge-sheet was issued and inquiry ordered by incompetent authority and that he was dismissed before issuance of show-cause notice". These findings of fact by the Labour Court were upheld. The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 21-6-1988. The petitioner-Bank seeks leave to appeal vide C.P. 902/88.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank reiterated the contention that the respondents- employees did not fall within the category of "workman", and, therefore, the Labour Courts did not have the jurisdiction in the matter.
5. The question as to whether the respondents were workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 or not, is a question of fact which was determined on the basis of evidence on record by the Labour Courts concerned. The point was agitated before the learned High Court and the latter found that the finding of fact was perfectly in order. Nothing has been shown as to how the finding of the Courts of exclusive jurisdiction is unreasonable or does not follow from the evidence on the record, nor any flaw has been found in the I reasoning or conclusion of the Learned High Court. Therefore, no occasion arises to grant leave to appeal. The petitions are consequently dismissed.