This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question the judgment dated 29-10-1991 passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, whereby it dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-Company by upholding the decision dated 15-5- 1991 given by the Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore, while accepting the grievance petition of respondent No. 1, who was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The facts in brief are that the services of Arif Shakoor Khan respondent No. 1 were terminated on 9-4-1989 while he was working as Assistant Engineer (Production) in the factory of the petitioner.
Respondent No. 1 challenged his termination before the Labour Court by means of a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The application was resisted by the petitioner on the sole ground that respondent No. 1 was since serving as Assistant Production Engineer with a salary of Rs.2, 500 per month, did not fall within the definition of `workman', in that, he was performing duties of supervisory nature. The Labour Court, after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the petitioner was a workman notwithstanding the fact that his designation was that of an Assistant Engineer but he had been performing the manual duties with his own hand. It was further held that services of respondent No. 1 were terminated due to union activities. Respondent No. 1 was also found to be jobless during the period of his termination. Consequently, he was directed to be reinstated with back benefits by order, dated 15-5-1991. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1'unjat--Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, who after re-appreciating the evidence or, record, dismissed the appeal with the observation that the petitioner failed to establish by documentary evidence that respondent No. 1 was performing any supervisory duties. The solitary statement made by RW1, who asserted that respondent No. 1 was performing duties of supervisory nature was not believed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal erred in disbelieving the statement of Muhammad Bilal (R.W.1.) by holding that duties performed by respondent No. 1 were not of supervisory nature although he believed the oral statement of respondent No. 1. The contention is devoid of any force. The question of believing and disbelieving the evidence was within the competence of the Tribunal. It is not the case of the petitioner that that tribunal misread or ignored any material piece of evidence while recording the finding that the petitioner was not performing any supervisory duties. Clearly, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of evidence by thoroughly scrutinizing the evidence as is evident by a bare reading of paragraph 2 of the judgment. The relevant portion reads thus: -- In this case no documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the appellant to show that the respondent was not doing any manual duties. The case of the appellant was that since there were 20 or 30 Supervisors, Assistant Supervisors, Operators, Assistant Operators and Helpers, the duties of the respondent could not be manual and that the Operators, Assistant Operators and Helpers had to perform the manual duties. The respondent deposed that he used to make tread on the tyres and operate calenders and tube manufacturing machines. He at that time was also assigned the duties of the size cutting and storage. The duties of the operations of the machines, placing of treads over the tyres and size cutting and storage could not be performed by Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors. They no doubt could be performed by the Operators, Assistant Operators and Helpers but R.W.1 the solitary witness examined by the appellant did not disclose how many Operators, Assistant Operators and Helpers were in service. He also did not give the correct number but only an approximate number of Assistant Supervisors, Operators, Assistant Operators and Helpers by saying that they were 20 or 30. If there were only few operators and Assistant, Operators, they were insufficient to cope with the work of the repairs and this is believable that besides those persons the duties of the respondent were to repair the machines. R.W. 1 no doubt stated that the respondent used to prepare the plans and supervisory process of three units and used to issue instructions to the Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors but no documentary evidence was produced in this respect. The plans prepared by the respondent could be very easily produced in evidence since they were in the occupation of the appellant. The instructions issued by the respondent could also be brought on the record. Neither R.W. 1 stated so nor any document was produced to show that the respondent had powers to issue charge-sheets, to promote or demote any person or sanction leave or even to forward the applications for leave. These are the functions of the supervisors but since no such documents were produced and even R.W. 1 did not orally say that any such duties were being performed by the respondent, this cannot be said that the respondent had supervisory powers/duties. In cases where a person performs supervisory duty but at the same time his duty is to do clerical and manual work, such a work done by him cannot be ignored but in the present case as mentioned above, the appellant failed to establish by documentary evidence that the respondent in reality was performing any supervisory duties. Every case is to be decided on the basis of the evidence and since in the present case the oral statement of the respondent was not rebutted by any documentary evidence, the learned lower Court was justified in declaring that the respondent was covered by the definition of `workman' given in section 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 even though his designation was Assistant Engineer and he was getting the salary above Rs.2, 000 per month."
In view of the above, I find no force in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed with no order ass to costs.