DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Learned Advocate-on-Record has submitted reply to the office objection wherein it is stated that impugned judgment was announced on 3-4-2000 and petition for leave to appeal was filed on 1Q-5-2000 as such the petition is not barred by 32 days. In support of his contention he has filed copy of cause list dated 3-4-2000 issued by the High Court of Sindh.
We, therefore, overrule the office objection.
2. Petitioner has -assailed the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dated 3-4-2000 seeking leave to appeal whereby C.P. No,D-1228 of 1997 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Sabir Mehmud was employed as Typist-cum-Store Keeper with Pearl Continental Hotel, the respondent No, 1 . Subsequently he was promoted and posted as Inventory Controller in a managerial category and again promoted in the capacity of Assistant Purchasing Manager with salary of Rs,7,500 per month. On 2-2-1992, services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent No,1 finding him to be unfit and further his services were no longer required. In lieu of notice before termination the petitioner was allowed three monthssalary.
4. Petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied, served grievance notice on the respondent No,1 and afterwards filed petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the.
Labour Court. At the conclusion of the trial, the Labour Court decided the case in favour of the petitioner holding that the petitioner was a workman. It further held that reasons for termination of the petitioner's services were not communicated by the management as such termination was declared to be unlawful and petitioner was directed to be reinstated with back benefits. The management of the Pearl Continental Hotel assailed the above judgment of the Labour court by way of appeal before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which, vide order, dated 19-5-1997, accepted the appeal and held that the petitioner was not a workman as he was holding job in the supervisory and managerial category. Learned Tribunal further held that grievance petition under section 25-A of the LR.Q. Was itself not maintainable before Labour Court. The petitioner approached the learned High Court in Constitution Petition but without success, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
5. Mr. Obaidur Rehman, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner contended that learned 'High Court ignored the evidence and in any event either did not read or misread the relevant evidence regarding the duties which were being performed by the petitioner resulting miscarriage of justice to the petitioner; that the petitioner is a workman and that salary and designation are not the criteria for deciding employee as workman. The petitioner was a General Secretary of a Union of the respondent therefore, he was victimized due to his union activities; that the petitioner was holding a job throughout his service as workman/worker right from 1968 till the termination of his services i.e,, 2-2-1992 and the findings of learned High Court of Sindh is contrary to law.
6. We have gone through the material on record which shows that the petitioner applied for his promotion to the post of Assistant Purchase Manager which is on record as Exh .4/1 wherein he had stated that he had been working for last over 15 years as Inventory Controller and by virtue of his job, he was fully conversant with the purchasing procedure, price trends and the market. The job description Exh.R/2 was also produced before the trial Court which indicates the duties and responsibilities of the petitioner. In affidavit-in-evidence, Janished Chowna, Manager (Purchase) at page 89 in para. 6 of the paper book stated as under:-- "I say that as Assistant Purchasing following staff who used to work Manager, the applicant had the under his direct control:-- In No,
1. Purchasing Of ficer 2-3
2. Purchase Assistant 1
3. Drivers Purchasing 2
4. Secretary 1
5. Stores Personnel 1 He further stated in his affidavit-in-evidence that during the period as Inventory Controller the petitioner's nature of duty was also supervisory in nature. The said job falls in the management cadre and the benefits available under the collectively bargained settlement applicable to the workmen category are not all applicable. The management had also filed job description showing the duties and responsibilities of various categories of the employees. This witness was cross- examined by the petitioner's counsel but his evidence has gone unshaken. From the record it is borne out that petitioner was working on the post of Inventory Controller and as Assistant Purchasing Manager he was responsible for purchasing requirement of the hotel which is mentioned in the job description as aforesaid. The Labour Appellate Tribunal as well as the learned High Court considering the evidence recorded by the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a workman and his petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Filed before the Labour Court was not maintainable.
7. We do not find any misreading or non-reading of the evidence by the Appellate Tribunal as well as the learned High Court. We also do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment.
8. For the above facts, circumstances and reasons, in our humble opinion, this petition is devoid of merits and substance which must fail. The same is hereby dismissed and leave is refused.