1. MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J.---The facts of the case are amply dilated upon in the orders of the Labour of Labour Court as also the Labor Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, need not be re- stated. Both such Courts have found the petitioner not to be a workman.
2. In support to the respondent's plea that the petitioner was not a workman, Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani has relied upon the following passage with which the cross-examination of the petitioner before the Labour Court commenced:-- "When my services were terminated I was working as Officer Grade-II in M.C.B. Pano Akil Branch at the time of termination of my service I was drawing salary of Rs,4,565 p.m. I was working as Accountant in Pano Akil Br. of the Bank at the time of termination of my service. I was officer number two in the Pano Akil Branch after the Manager. In the absence of Manager I used to work as In charge Manager of M.C.B. Pano Akil Branch Officer Grade-II of M.C.B. works in the management cadre. Pay Commission fixes salary of officer working in the Bank. Wage Commission fixes salary of workers. I was not holding power of Attorney of M.C.B. Ltd. I used to supervise work of staff working in the M.C.B. Branch at Pano Akil. When I was dismissed from service by Bank Authority at that time 14 persons were working in the Pano Akil Branch Payment made in the Branch comes within the knowledge of Accountant of the Branch.
3. The learned counsel has further stated that the consistent view of the superior Courts pertaining to M.C.B. employees is that officer in Grade-III, and upwards have been adjudged as non-workmen.
4. He adds that according to the prevailing view enunciated by the Supreme Court pertaining to less than 20 people being employed in a branch, such branch having been treated as an establishment for the purposes of the applicable law, the opinion as reflected in 1992 SCM R 505;
(523) Abdul Razzaq v. Messrs Ehsan Sons Ltd. and 2 others) applies with fill force to the present case and the grievance petition was, therefore, not entertainable at all. As against this the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the following averments on cross- examination made by the respondents' witness before the Labor Court:-- "Applicant Shafi Muhammad was posted as Accountant at Pano Akil Branch M.C.B. Whatever the applicant has stated in affidavit in evidence and also his grievance application regarding nature of duties is incorrect. Branch Manager Mahar was controlling the branch of M.C.B. at Pano Akil. It is correct that applicant Shafi Muhammad was not competent to suspend any of the employee of the M.C.B. Branch at Pano Akil or grant leave or take any disciplinary action against the employees of above said Bank. It is incorrect to suggest that applicant's duty was to prepare weekly, monthly and yearly return of the Bank. It is incorrect to suggest that it was a duty of the applicant to balance the cash and record. We prepare restore for the duties of employees of the Branch, specifying the duties of every employee of the branch. It is incorrect to suggest that duties mentioned by applicant in his grievance application and also in the affidavit in evidence are same as per roster maintained by the branch of M.C.B. at Pano Akil. It is incorrect to suggest that the roster of the branch has not been produced by us in this matter in order to conceal the nature of the duties which applicant was p-reforming at the above said branch of the Bank. It is correct to suggest that the applicant has got no power of attorney on behalf of the Bank. It is fact that applicant was charge-sheeted on 3-4-1991."
5. Mr. Aqil Awan also refers to Allied Bank Ltd. v. Muhammad Humayun Khan, 1988 SCM R 1664, to urge that even Manager of a bank in appropriate cases can be termed to be a workman.
6. Having heard the learned counsel we are of the view that. the question whether a person is or is not a workman is essentially a question of fact and concurrent findings on the question recorded by Tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction cannot be interfered with except for good reasons. One of the reasons why the Supreme Court did not interfere with the conclusions ' recorded upto the level of the High Court in Allied Bank's case (supra) was the same, namely, that the question was one of the fact. Besides, whatever the petitioner himself conceded in his cross-examination before the Labour Court appears to be enough to say that the petitioner was anything but a workman.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this petition which is dismissed.