Learned counsel contends that respondent Muzaffar Ali was a Foreman in Bata (Pakistan) Ltd. It is in evidence before the Labour Court that he used to grant leave and issue show-cause notices and charge-sheets to the employees under him. It is, therefore, argued that the said respondent was not a workman within the meaning of Labour Laws and, as such, his grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Was not maintainable.
2. As regards the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, learned counsel submits that in view of the fact that the Labour Tribunal is empowered to suspend the operation of the impugned order only for 20 days, appeal filed by the petitioner cannot be said to be an adequate remedy in the circumstances of the case. Learned counsel further points out that in similar circumstances when appeals were pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Constitutional petitions on the ground of inefficacy of the appeals were entertained in this Court and were also finally disposed of. He has particularly referred to W.Ps. Nos. 3754/77 and 1578/76. Question raised needs consideration. Admit. Notice.
3. Mr. Asghar Mahmood, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. Notice need not be sent to him.
5. As the service is complete and a short question is involved in this petition, it be set down for hearing before the commencement of long summer vacations, 1985.
H.B.T./P-75/L Petition admitted