' The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 29-5-1984 passed by respondent No,2/Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore whereby appeal filed by respondent No,1 against the order dated 5-4-1984 delivered by Punjab Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur was accepted.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No,1 had been employed in Grade-IV. He was dismissed from service on 3-9-1979 on the charge of misconduct. Initially he filed a civil suit against his order of dismissal which was dismissed on 28-10-1979. Thereafter, he served a grievance notice upon the petitioner and finally respondent No,1 filed an application before the Labour Court, Bahawalpur. His application was also dismissed vide order dated 5-4-1984. Feeling aggrieved from the said order, he filed an appeal with the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore who was pleased to accept the appeal vide order dated 29-5-1984. Hence the instant writ petition.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the-petitioner is that respondent No,1 was not workman and as such could not seek the relief which he had been claiming either from the Labour Court or from the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. To elaborate his contentions he submits that respondent at the relevant time had been working in Grade-III and had been issued a power of attorney on behalf of the Bank which clearly shows that he was not working as a workman but an officer of the Bank. He further submits that the mere fact that respondent No,1 was not discharging duties of manager at the relevant time does not mean that he had become a workman as contemplated by I.R.O., 1969, that his contentions did not find favour with the Labour Court as such his application was dismissed. However, upon appeal his contentions weighed with the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal and consequently appeal was accepted. He further contended that employees belonging to Bank Officer Grade have not been ad-judged to be workman and placed reliance upon Messrs ANZ Grindlays Bank, through Area Manager (North) and another v. Masud Pervaiz 1999 PLC 38). "The President, Muslim Commercial , Bank Limited Head Office, Karachi and 2 others v. Muhammad Tariq (1999 PLC 371). He also submitted that Bank Manager and Bank Officer are-issued power of attorneys which, fact takes them out of the plea of workman and placed reliance upon "Habib Bank Ltd., Karachi v. Nazir Ahmad (1997 PLC 638 and "(Ganga R. Madhani v.
Standard Bank Ltd. And others" (1985 SCM R 1511).
5. On the other hand none is present to support the impugned order passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 29-5-1984 as respondent No,1 has been proceeded ex parte.
6. A perusal of the contentions of application under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 reveals that respondent No,1 has claimed himself to be an Officer Grade-Ill. While recording his statement as P.W.1 he has also changed his own version incorporated in the petition. He has also admitted in his statement that he had been given power of attorney like other officers of the Bank. However, he has stated that he could not dismiss any Bank employee or could suspend any official of the Bank. He has also given the details of duties which he used to perform in the Bank.
7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that respondent was initially employed/recruited/appointed as Officer Grade III in the Bank and he was not discharging such duties when he was dismissed from service. The mere fact that he had been issued power of attorney on behalf of bank means that he was not a workman but an officer. The nature of duties shows that he has been the Manager of the Bank in different branches and was also working in the same capacity when he was issued a charge-sheet and dismissed from service.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the respondent No,1 has failed to prove that he was a workman as defined in I.R.O., 1969 at the relevant time and as such the trial Court was justified in dismissing his application. The order passed by Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, under the circumstances is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently, the instant writ petition is accepted and the order passed by Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is, set aside and that of Punjab Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur is restored.