The circumstances in which this petition has arisen are as follows
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Project Engineer, with the R. C. D. Ball Bearing Ltd., the respondent No. 3, a factory situated in Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi, on 15-7-1970. It appears that the appointment was regularised on 1-6-1971. It is alleged that, once the foreign experts had gone away from the factory, the General Manager of the said respondent assumed dictatorial powers, which led to various complaints to the Chairman of the factory. Unable to cope up with the situation, a number of Engineers walked away, and some were forced to resign. The petitioner was also pressed to resign, but he declined. It was in the last week of March 1974 that the petitioner applied for leave for health reasons. The petitioner was called upon to submit a medical certificate in support of the application. Such a certificate was duly sent. However, as the petitioner was still not fit enough to resume his duties, by his letter dated 15-4-1974, he requested for extension of leave by another fifteen days. He never received any reply and, when he reported for his duty on 25-4-1974, he was told that his services stood terminated. Finding no satisfaction, the petitioner was constrained to file an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Third Junior Labour Court, Karachi. The application, however, came to be dismissed on 18-7-1974. It was found by the Presiding Officer that the petitioner was the head of the Tools and Maintenance Department, and enjoyed the designation of Manager. It was further found that, on his own showing, he was responsible for framing policies in regard to job evalua--tion, fixation of wages, and looking after confidential matters relating to the administration and management of the Company, apart from representing the Management in the Works Council constituted under Section 24 of the Ordinance. Further, he was a Member of the Co-ordination Committee of the Departmental Heads, and that, as the Head of his Department, he used to carry on correspondence involving financial implications with foreign concerns on behalf of the Company.
He was, therefore, an employer, and not a workman, and the application was incompetent.
3. This led to an appeal, and the learned Presiding Officer of the Sind Labour Court No. 4, agreeing with the conclusions reached by the Junior Labour Court, dismissed the appeal by order dated 16- 12-1974. The order also mentioned that "even according to the terms and conditions of his service, he was rightly removed from his service".
4. Mr. Sabihuddin Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Labour Courts were in error to have looked to the definition of the "workman" as to be found in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, as against the definition thereof in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Em--ployment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. In a very able address, he took me through a number of judgments from various jurisdictions. Mr. Shareef, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, without conceding the position, argued that the petitioner would not be a workman under the schemes of either Ordinances. On the conclusion of the arguments, I had dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs, and informed the parties that I will give the reasons for the dismissal later on. The same is being done now.
5. It is not necessary to examine the various contentions and proposi--tions of law raised, as, in some similar circumstances, I had earlier dismissed in limine a petition filed by one Talat Farooq, who was an Industrial Relations Advisor of Messrs Chloride Pakistan Limited, on the ground that his duties were of supervisory nature. Against this order, a petition, being Civil Petition .for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-145 of 1976, was filed before the Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed by judgment dated 21st September, 1976. In this judgment, reference was made to the case of Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Muhammad Abdul Ghani and another (PLD 1975 Kar 342). Their Lordships observed that the proposition laid down in the judgment, referred to earlier, had reference to the peculiar facts of that case, and that they could not extend it to a different situation.
Their Lordships went on to say: "We would also clarify that the judgment does not support the view that a person is a workman merely because he may be working under some--one else. After all even the General Manager of a company has to work under the Directors of the company. This by itself would not make him a workman, and the question would always be of the facts and circumstances of each case. In these circumstances, the fact that this Court dismissed the petition for leave by Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills Ltd. would also not help the petitioner's case, unless he is able to establish that his duties were of a clerical nature". The very appointment letter issued to the petitioner on June 1, 1971, starts with the term: "We offer you a post in the Senior Officer's grade of the Management and supervisory staff group of the Company". The petitioner was the Manager of the Tools Making and Maintenance Depart--ment, and signed as such. There is, otherwise, nothing to show that the findings of fact, as given by the Courts below, were not properly supported by the material on record. These being the facts, it cannot be said that the orders are not in the exercise of lawful authority, and therefore of no legal effect.