KHALIL-UR-REHMAN, J.- This constitution petition is directed against the order dated 16.1.1991 of the learned Member, N.I.R.C, whereby the application of the petitioner under section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 was dismissed recording the observations that since the petitioner has been promoted as Assistant Engineer and he has been given the control of 40 workmen and according to the service Manual T&T Department he is empowered to impose penalty on the working staff he is an employer and as such by operation of law, he has ceased to be a member of the Union, and the order dated 3.9.1991 whereby the Full Bench of N.I.R.C, confirming the conclusion of the learned Member dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel in support of the petition argued that the question whether the petitioner ceased to be a workman and whether he on account of his promotion as Assistant Engineer is an employer and thus has ceased to be a member of the worker Union is a question of fact and the said fact could not have been determined without allowing the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence. It was added that the provisions contained in the T & T Manual are not applicable and the petitioner cannot be considered to be an employer having the power of making appointment as under the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1973 and officer of grade-20 has the power of appointment. The question, whether the petitioner falls within the definition of "workman" or "employer" has to be determined with reference to the definition of these terms contained in the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The petitioner admittedly has been promoted as Assistant Engineer and is drawing more than Rs. 800/- per mensem. Nothing was brought on record by the petitioner even in the appeal filed by him to show that he, in the capacity of Assistant Engineer, is not included in the supervisory staff and the power to impose penalty as given in the T&T Manual is not being exercised by him. His challenge was merely based on the plea that the a forenoted Service Rules confer power of appointment on an officer of grade-20 and that his post is not of grade-20. Nothing has been produced even in? This petition to controvert the plea as regards the functions and powers which are statedly being exercised by him as an Assistant Engineer. It is idle to urge that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to controvert the material upon which the judgment of learned single Member of NIRC was based, as the petitioner had the opportunity to controvert the same by producing relevant material in the appeal filed by him.
3. For the reasons given above, no case is made out for interference in exercise of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed in limine.