1. ORDER The above-named appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 13-7-1973 passed by the Junior Labour Court, Gujrat/Jhelum Districts whereby an application made by the respondent for his re-instatement was accepted and the appellant was directed to "appoint (sic) the petitioner within 7 days at Hassanabdal Quarry. The case of the respondent as per his petition made in the Junior Labour appellant at different places. His services were terminated on 10-3-1573 on account of his Trade Union activities while 5 other persons who were junior to him were retained.
2. The appellant resisted the petition and raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner-!espondent was not a workman, therefore Junior Labour Court had no jurisdiction and the petition was not maintainable. The Junior 1 abour Court recorded the evidence of the parties and by its order now under appeal issued the direction reproduced above. Feeling dissatisfied with this order the appellant has come up in appeal to question its correctness. Arguments heard The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my atteniion to termination letters Exhs. DD, DE, DF, DG and DH which show that the petitioner-respondent as Manager of the appellant-company had authority to appoint workmen. This documentary evidence shows that he was employed mainly in managerial and administrative capacity, therefore, he does not fall within the definition of workman given in I. R. O., 1969 and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. It is very strange that this objection was specifically raised in the reply statement but the Presiding Officer of the Junior Labour Court did not bother to touch it and proceeded on with the petition on merits. I have also noted with concern that in cross-examination the petitioner-respondent had stated that he was not willing to serve the appellants Company at Hassan abdal, but despite this the Junior Labour Court observed that the Management had offered appointment to the petitioner and he should have accepted this offer, lt is in the order of the Junior Labour Court that the petitioner had refused to serve the Company at Hassanabdal but strangely enough direction was issued to the appellant Company to appoint the unwilling petitioner at Hassanabdal. There was absolutely no basis for such a direction. For the foregoing reasons I accept this appeal, set aside the order of the Junior Labour Court and dismiss the ^petition for re- instatement as not maintainable.