DECISION The impugned order was passed on the 20th of March, 1974, by the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No.ll, Karachi, whereby the learned Court dismissed the application filed under section 25-A on two-fold grounds namely, (1) that the appellant did not follow the procedure prescribed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the 'Ordinance'), (2) that the cause of action arose in East Pakistan and therefore, it has no jurisdiction.
The facts giving rise to the present appeal briefly put are these.
2. The appellant was employed in 1962 at Chittagong as Supervisor to assist the Manager. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 850 per month, plus food, residence and allowance of Rs.
45. He was also entitled to Air fare from Chittagong to Karachi and back. Since 1972 he remained as a Supervisor in Chittagong Branch. The respondent at the earliest took the plea that the appellant was not a workman within the definition given under the Ordinance. The learned Court had given no finding in respect of this objection which was a very material one. On the face of it the appellant drawing a salary of Rs. 850 as a Supervisor and other benefits cannot be held to be a workman. I may mention here that in spite of the plea of the respondent that he is not a workman the apppellant for the reason best known to him, did not disclose the duties he was performing, lt depends upon the nature of the duty as to whether he was a workman or not. Mere designation is immaterial In the absence of any evidence by the appellant as to what duty he was performing I would hold that he is not a workman and, therefore, the application under section 25-A was not maintainable. Moreover no ground has been made out by the appellant to modify the decision on the points on which his application has been dismissed by the learned Court. The appeal is dismissed.