DECISION ' Aggrieved by the order of Fourth Sindh Labour Court dated 14-11-1998, the appellant Shafat Ahmed has filed this appeal. His case, briefly stated, is that he had entered service as Senior Assistant when Awami Autos Limited had control over the Management of present establishment. After the control was taken over by Pak Suzuki Company he was re-absorbed in the same capacity as Senior Assistant vide appointment order dated 8-1-1984 (at page 512 of the Lower Court's file). In that capacity he was working in spare Parts Department operating computer and doing other manual and clerical work. He was maintaining record of Spare Parts, preparing vouchers. Invoices, Packing Slips, cost sheets beside various periodical reports. By order dated 15-7-1992 (at page 53 of Lower Court's file) he was promoted as Junior Executive, but he continued to perform the same job under the changed designation.
2. Ever since February 1995 the Management started harassing him on suspicion of his having links with CBA. Apprehending that he might be made the target of victimization, he filed a case on 2-10- 1996 before N.I.R.C. Praying that respondent company be restrained from committing unfair labour practice. The respondent company in response to notice issued by N.I.R.C. Filed Written Statement, taking stand that the appellant's services had already been terminated on 30th September, 1996. In the meantime while his case was in progress before the N.I.R.C. He was stopped by the company from doing his normal duties. It was for the first time that he came to know about the termination of his services on 15-10-1996. Accordingly he gave grievance notice to the company on or about 15- 12-1996 and the company's reply to the notice was made on or about 29th December, 1996.
Thereafter, he filed grievance petition before the Fourth Sindh Labour Court Karachi on 14-1-1997 with the above result.
3. In their written reply, the respondent company has taken a legal objection that grievance petition of the appellant was hopelessly time-barred and further he was not a workman and, therefore, he had no locus standi to prefer the blated grievance notice. It is further stated by the respondent company that appellant was not automatically absorbed after the control of the Management changed hands but after he tendered resignation from the service of the predecessor's company, his appointment in the present company was made afresh. The Written Statement of the respondent company further goes to show that particularly after the appellant was promoted to the post of Junior Executive in Grade E-14 his emoluments including his salary were revised and he was made subject to the Executive Staff Rules of the respondent-company. As such, it was averred by the respondent company, that the grievance petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable.
4: I heard the arguments of learned counsel of both the parties and also carefully perused the relevant record available in the case file.
5. It appeared from the arguments of the parties's Advocates that they had serious controversy over the status of the appellant. On one hand the appellant's stand was that he was a workman not only at the time of his service as Senior Assistant but also his same status continued even after his promotion to the post of Junior Executive. In the event of such controversy the burden heavily lays on the appellant to prove his status as workman. Excepting his verbal statement he has produced no other evidence in proof. If he was really doing manual job of maintaining record and preparing various documents and reports even after his appointment as Junior Executive he could have produced documentary evidence in support of his version. He has also not produced any other witness in evidence to support his case that he was a workman. Though the respondent- company has not seriously contested his status of workman before promotion, yet they have taken a firm stand that on his promotion as Junior Executive he caused to be a workman. In support of their stand they have first relied upon the appellant's own admission inasmuch as that he was not member of the CBA nor he had ever been given the benefit of settlement arrived at between the CBA and the management. If he had been a workman he would have not only taken part in the activities of the CBA and become its member but also availed the benefits of periodical settlements made between the CBA and the Management. It is true that the status of workman is not determined on the basis of the designation or any other factors but it is decided in the light of performance of his duties. As pointed out earlier the appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proving his status as workman. If so he cannot be allowed to take advantage of the weaknesses of the respondent's case, for such proof.
6. In support of its stand the respondent-company has laid great stress on the promotion order of the appellant. Its perusal would reveal that appellant was elevated to same high executive job namely Junior Executive. His emoluments beside salary included House Rent Allowance and Utility Allowance which are not normally given to the workman. The order further shows that he was to remain on probation for six months before confirmation in the promotional post but in case of workman, clause (c) of Standing Order 1 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 clearly shows if a workman is employed in permanent post he has to complete only three months' probation. Apart from this, subsequent to his promotion he was made subjects to Staff Service Rules and this is mentioned in the promotion order itself. Since the said order was admittedly singed by the appellant he must have gone through all its contents including the applicability of the aforesaid rules to him instead of the rules contained in the Standing Orders Ordinance' 1968 applicable to workman. Thus, the appellant by signing the promotion order had presumably accepted the changed position of his status. Having accepted all the things mentioned in the promotion order and having signed the said order in token of its acceptance, it does not lie in his mouth to say that he continued to remain as workman even after such a drastic change not only in his status but also in terms and conditions of his employment. Merely because he was using computer would not put him in the category of workman. The learned Labour Court has rightly observed in this connection that this being a computer age it has become fashion even for people of high status to use computer for various purposes.
7. The contradictions appearing in the appellant's statement also seriously reflected on his character and truthfulness. At one place (Grievance Notice as well as Grievance Petition) he stated that after the control and management of Awami Autos Limited was taken over by the respondent company, he like other workers was automatically absorbed in the respondent-company as if to maintain continuity in his service. But in his affidavit-in-evidence he admitted that he resigned from service of the Awami Autos Limited and employed afresh by the respondent-company. Again by promotion order referred to above he was promoted to the post of Junior Executive with changes in his emoluments and applicability of rules yet he has stated that he was not promoted but only his designation was changed. In view of such inconsistencies shown by the appellant in his statements he could not be safely relied upon in respect of all what he has stated in support of his case.
8. After taking into consideration the arguments of the learned counsel and the material available on record. I am inclined to agree with the findings of the learned Labour Court that particularly after appellant's promotion to the post of Junior Executive he no longer remained as workmen and as such for the purpose of termination of his services new rules were applicable which inter alia provided that three months' pay in lieu of three months notice was necessary for his termination.
As such there was nothing wrong with his termination order.
' Consequently the appeal being without substance is hereby dismissed.