DECISION ' This is an appeal against an order, dated 21-2-1990, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI, at Hyderabad whereby grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Ahsanul Haq Siddiqui, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Raees M.
Mushtaq, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed as a `jobber' by the respondents.
His services were terminated by order, dated 1-4-1988. After serving grievance notice he filed grievance petition which was resisted by the respondents mainly on the ground that the appellant was not a `workman'.
4. The only question involved in this case is whether the appellant was workman. It is settled law that mere designation is not sufficient to determine the status of an employee as a workman but the nature of work that he was doing has to be used for the said purpose. The appellant has stated that as a 'jobber' he used to clean machines with his own hands. This statement has been challenged in the cross-examination but he has stood by his contention. In rebuttal the respondent has examined Nazar Ali Khoja but he admits that he was not in service of the respondents when the appellant was in service of the respondent and when he was removed. Therefore his evidence as to the nature of work that the appellant was performing has got no value. He has admitted in the cross-examination that the appellant was given `appointment order' showing nature of his duties.
The respondents have not produced the office copy of the said order to prove nature of the duties of the I appellant.
5. I also find that the appellant was admittedly charge-sheeted on 16-2-1988 vide Exh. A/6 for remaining absent without permission from 11-1-1988 which is shown as misconduct under Standing Order 15(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968. In other words the respondents themselves treated the appellant to be a workman which fact is further substantiated from the evidence on record.
6. However instead of holding enquiry under Standing Order 15(4) with respect of charge-sheet A/6 the respondents issued the termination order on 1-4-1988 which is obviously illegal and is not tenable and is, therefore, set aside.
7. However if the respondents want to hold enquiry with regard to charge-sheet A/6 they may hold the enquiry and complete it within three months of this order.
8. As result of above discussion the impugned order is set aside. The appellant is ordered to be reinstated in service within one month. Payment of back benefits would be dependent upon the result of the enquiry, if held by the respondents. If the enquiry is not held or not completed within the period specified above the respondents would pay full back benefits to the appellant.