1. The present application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order, dated 14February, 1976 through which his services were terminated.
2. The petition was contested.
3. As preliminary objection it was contended that the petitioner was neither a workman as defined in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 nor a workman as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and hence he has on locus standi to institute the present petition.
4. This objection goes to the root of the case and requires to be dealt with at the earliest stage.
5. The petitioner at the time of the termination of his services was posted as the resident Executive of the Peshawar Establishment of the respondent. His gross emolument were Rs. 1,205 per month. He was Incharge of the Establishment and the other employees used to work under his supervision and control as stated by R. W.
1. Mr. Tariq Ahmed, Manager of the respondent. The main duty of the petitioner according to this witness was to arrange the exhibition of films on behalf of PISFA. This witness further stated that the petitioner was not required to do manual or clerical work as part of his duties. This witness stated that as Resident Executive the petitioner used to meet the Chief Secretary and even the Minister in order to explain the nature of the work of the Study Circle.
6. In his own application copy Exh. P. W. 1/3 the petitioner stated :- "4. The chatter of my duties assigned to me at Peshawar was no absolutely confined to conduction of the business of the Study Circle but also included :-
(a) Public Relations.th
(b) Liaison work in between the Head Office and the Provincial Govern--ment concerned.
(c) Protocol.
(d) Exhibition and inspection of NAFDEC releases at Peshawar."
7. The nature of duties thus listed would clearly show that these are not jobs of a routine nature but require tact, imagination and initiative and can--not be called clerical or manual. I thus hold that the petitioner is not a workman according to the definition given in the relevant laws and hence the petition is not maintainable in this Court. Orders passed accordingly.