SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Petitioner before us was working as Assistant Accountant in K.S.B. Pumps Co. Ltd. When on 10-1-1987 he was charge-sheeted and found guilty in inquiry proceedings.
Resultantly he was dismissed vide order dated 18-2-1987. He filed grievance petition under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 in the Labour Court which was resisted and plea was taken by the respondents/employers that petitioner was not workman, hence Labour Court had no jurisdiction.
Finally Labour Court allowed petition vide order dated 3-11-1990 with direction of reinstatement with full back 'benefits. Appeal was allowed by Labour Appellate Tribunal, vide judgment dated 19-12- 1990 and the case was remanded on a technical ground. Labour Court once again directed reinstatement with back benefits vide order dated 17-2-1991. Labour Appellate Tribunal accepted appeal vide judgment dated 24-3-1991 on the ground that petitioner was not workman. Feeling aggrieved petitioner filed writ petition in the High Court, which is dismissed vide judgment dated 27-9-1993 agreeing with view taken by Labour Appellate Tribunal that petitioner is not a workman, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that petitioner is workman as contemplated within its definition in section 2(i) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and not under I.R.O. As definitions under the two enactments are different from each other. Second contention raised is that on merits also petitioner was doing clerical work as is manifest from the evidence produced on the record. .
3. Case law covering contentions mentioned above, requires that onus is on the workman to show that he is so within the meaning of labour laws and that onus must be discharged by leading sufficient evidence. While evaluating the evidence pith and substance of duties should be considered and not the designation. Even salary is not of much relevance. To answer the contentions much depends on the evidence produced in that case and facts of each case are different from another.
4. In the case of Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Muhammad Abdul Ghani and another (1979 SCM R 304), Chief Accountant getting monthly salary of Rs.1,050 acting under instructions of Incharge of Accounts and having no supervisory functions to perform was declared to be a workman. Same case is repeated in the same volume at page 382.
5. In the case of Ganga R. Madhani v. Standard Bank Ltd. And others (1985 SCM R 1511) bank employee appointed as Accountant, whose duties also included passing of vouchers, cheques and bank drafts, supervision and checking of ledgers and supervision of despatch of bank advices and statements of accounts, was declared to be not a workman as his powers and functions could neither be termed as manual nor clerical work and involved exercise of discretion and taking of important decisions.
6. In the case of Shahi Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others (1993 SCM R 1370), it is held that employee claimed to be a workman performing duties of clerical and manual nature is required to produce documentary or oral evidence in support of his claim.
Evidence produced by the parties is to indicate nature of the work whether it is routine or of manual nature or of supervisory nature. In that case Public Relations officer, who had been assisting in litigation in the Courts was declared to be not a workman as was manifest from evidence produced in that case.
7. In the instant case evidence produced by the parties and brought on the record shows that as is apparent from Exhs. R/6 to R/9, petitioner recommended these leave applications by signing relevant columns reserved for head of department. Exhs. R/10 and R/11 are over-time sheets bearing signatures of petitioner. Exhs. R/12 and R/13 are travelling vouchers checked by him. Exh.
R/16 is pay-roll checked by him. Overtime wages could not be paid unless certified by the petitioner. Exhs. R/10 and R/11 indicated that petitioner exercised supervisory powers. In such circumstances evidence clearly showed that petitioner performed duties of supervisory nature and in any case he failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim that he is a workman and did not perform duties of supervisory nature.
8. For facts and reasons stated above, we are unable to find any flaw or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court with which no interference is warranted and in the result leave is refused and the petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.