QAZI MOHAMMAD JAMIL J.- The petitioner was found to be a workman by the Presiding Officer, Labour court, peshawar and the chairman NWFP, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar endorsed his views. We would not like to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact with regard to the petitioner being not a workman arrived at by the Courts of exclusive jurisdiction but a perusal of the order passed by the Chairman NWFP, Labour Appellate Tribunal would reveal that he has not given any reason for agreeing with the findings of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. The evidence was led on the nature of the job being done by the petitioner. Such evidence was to betaken into consideration in deciding the question of his being workman which in turn would determine the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that not only his appeal was dismissed in limine, as is evident from the impugned order, but the record of the case was not even summoned.
We have gone through the grounds of appeal and we find that the learned Chairman NWFP. Labour Appellate Tribunal (ought to have at least sent for the record and seen the evidence before concluding [that the findings of the Labour Court were.In order. The learned counsel for the [respondents has not been able to controvert the aforesaid stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, lt is an old case and it is with heavy heart that we have decided to remit the same for consideration by the learned Chairman NWFP, Labour Appellate Tribunal in the light of the observations made above.
3. The petition is, therefore, accepted, order dated 6.6.84, passed by the learned Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar is set aside and to him for decision afresh. No order as to costs.