DECISION This appeal calls in question the order of Labour Court NO.III, Karachi, whereby the petition under section 25-A for reinstatement in service, was allowed with back benefits. The circumstances in which this arose are as follows.
2. The petitioner was appointed by the respondents as an Assistant Production Officer on or about 12-2-1985 with a salary of Rs.1,800 per month which was inclusive of allowances. His services came to be terminated on 17-10-1990 on the ground that the same were no longer required. He had served the Grievance Notice and finding no satisfaction had filed the petition before the Labour Court. The allegations came to be resisted in the written statement filed by the respondent inter alia on the ground that the petitioner was not a workman.
3. The petitioner was his own witness and Dr. Khalid Sifat Siddiqui, the Production Manager appeared on behalf of the respondents.
4. The Labour Court found the petitioner to be a workman and the termination order to be bad in law. It, therefore, allowed the petition with back benefits resulting in this appeal.
5. The main question for consideration in this appeal will be in regard to the status of the respondent. He had the following to say in the petition:- " That applicant alongwith other workers, were packing the chemicals cartons provided by the Company and being sent to the field, being agricultural toxic chemical and was putting his signature in the shape of stamp, marking as person, responsible for damage of the contents, being shipped by the respondent."
6. In his affidavit he added that he had received Training from the Pakistan Institute of Management. He went on to say that he tried to suggest ways and means to improve productivity and the efficiency of the workers, gave opinion to the Management, and also recommend leave to the workers. He ended by saying as follows: "He was maintaining a record of Material Balance. All the Registers of Excise Department. The work being carried on by him was purely a clerical work being the major function of the duties."
On his own showing he had been appointed in the Officers Grade. According to him there was four lines in the Production Section comprising of twenty persons each but denied that he was supervising their work. However, he was confronted with a number of documents wherein he had given remarks and ratings of the workers and recommending grant of leave to the workers of the Production Section. This had been brought on the record as Exhs. R.4 to R.10.
Then there are suggestions from him to the Management which in his opinion would be helpful in streamlining the Production Work. He also gave safety talks to the Workers. He had also participated in the Supervisory Course conducted by the Pakistan Institute of Management.
7. He is a graduate in Science and holds the Law Degree also, doing, as he says, "some legal work for people by representing them before the Registrar of Properties". The fact however remains that apart from the mere word of the respondent there is no proof oral or documentary to substantiate that he was doing any clerical work. To say, therefore, as was alleged by the respondent in the petition that he was doing the packing work is too much of a demand on one's credulity. He did not pick up the courage to suggest it in the cross---examination of Dr. Siddiqui.
8. It is a trite proposition of law that the burden to establish the assertion that he was involved in a work which was manual or clerical in nature lay on him. See Sadiq Ali Khan v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others PLD 1994 Supreme Court 273. Nothing of the sort is discernible.
9. It is true that the pay which at the relevant time of Rs.2,100 P.M. Or the designation of Production Officer will be neither here nor there. It is not necessary to dilate on the testimony of Dr. Khalid Sifat Siddiqui. His own candid admissions in his affidavit and the documents on the record are eloquent proof of the supervisory nature of his job.
10. The letter terminating the service would have been a flawed document if the provision of the Standing Orders were to be attracted, but that is, as mentioned earlier, wide of the shark.
11. In the light of the view I have taken the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed.