DECISION ' This appeal has been filed against ex parte judgment of Sindh Labour Court No,V., Karachi.
' The facts of the case as stated in the judgment dated 24th February, 2001 are that the appellant was appointed as Security Guard in the respondents' Establishment with effect from 2-4-1997. He performed his duties to the entire satisfaction of the Establishment. The respondent-Management shifted their Office from Malir to present location and consequently the appellant also attended his duties at new Office from the month of July, 2000 onward. The management instead of taking him on duty asked him to wait for proper placement in new Office. He repeatedly visited the respondents-Establishment for his placement but without any result. After about three weeks he was informed verbally that his services had been terminated. No reason had been assigned for termination of his services not any notice was given to him. As such his termination was in contravention of law. He was not even paid legal dues. The verbal termination being illegal and invalid the appellant served grievance notice on the respondents' Establishment but it was not responded nor was he allowed to attend duty, hence the appellant was constrained to file grievance petition which was ultimately dismissed and hence this appeal.
2. It appears from the impugned judgment that though the respondent-Establishment was served with notice yet they filed no reply statement. Consequently the appellant filed his affidavit-in-ex parte proof.
3. The only point for determination in this appeal is whether the grievance petition filed under section 25-A of I.R.O. Was rightly dismissed? After perusal of the grievance petition and the appellant's affidavit in support of the said petition in the light of ex parte judgment my finding is not different from that of the learned Labour Court. In the affidavit which the appellant has filed in ex parte proof he has also repeated what he has stated in his grievance petition. Both these documents namely grievance petition and the ex parte affidavit in its support are enough to decide the fate of the case. Nowhere throughout these two important documents has the appellant claimed to be a workman. On the contrary the very first para. Of the grievance petition starts as : "That the applicant was appointed as Security Guard in your Establishment with effect from 2nd February, 1997". Having said so in second para. Of the petition he stated that he performed his duties to the entire satisfaction of his superiors of course as Security Guard and not as a workman. In third para. It is stated that: "Management shifted its office from Malir to the present location and therefore, the appellant too attended his duty at the new office from the month of July, 2000. Instead of taking him on duty he was asked to wait for proper placement. He waited for about three weeks whereafter he was informed verbally that his services had been terminated". Thus nowhere throughout the grievance petition it is stated that he was assigned the duties of workman. The appellant's personal affidavit which is ditto of his grievance petition in verbatim also does not disclose that at any time he was given the assignment of workman. As stated above his own admission is that he was appointed as Security Guard.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has correctly argued that mere designation would not determine the status of the appellant but it was the nature of duties performed by him would decide about his being workman or not. The authorities cited by him in this connection are also correct to that effect but as pointed out above against his own admission that he was appointed as Security Guard he has not uttered a single word either in grievance petition or in his supporting affidavit that at any time he had worked as workman. The learned Labour Court has correctly held that Security Guard is not included in the definition of workman given in the Standing Orders Ordinance or I.R.O. Furthermore the appellant has not stated either in his grievance petition or in his affidavit produced as ex parte proof that in addition to working as Security Guard he was doing duties of workman also.
' In view of the above discussion, I am constrained to agree with the finding of the learned Labour Court that the appellant was not a workman and as such the grievance petition filed by him was not maintianable.
' Consequently the appeal is dismissed.