DECISION ' By this judgment two Appels No KAR-277 of 1998 filed by Masoodur Rehman and No,KAR-281 of 1998 filed by Muhammad Siddique against separate orders bearing same date i,e, 22nd August, 1998 are being disposed of. By the impugned orders the grievance petitions of the said apellants were dismissed. The facts of both the appeals and the issues involved in them are more or less identical.
2. The appellants' case may be summarized as follows. Both the appellants were appointed in the respondents' Establishment as salesmen 16 years ago. All this time they were performing manual duty by selling Bakery items to various shopkeepers in the market -and collecting money from them and depositiong the same with the Cashier. Therefore they were wrokmen within the meaning of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and I.R.O., 1969. 'In November, 1995 the two appellants together with other workers were informed by the respondents' Establishment that due to lack of funds their financial position was weak and therefore they could not pay them wages for 3/4 months which would be paid together with the salary of months of January and February, 1996.
However in the month of January, 1996 the appellants insisted on the payment of their earned wages but somehow the respondents' Establishment postponed the payment on one or the other pretext until 1-3-1996 when they were verbally informed that they had already been told that their services were no longer required from the said date. When they insisted on written letter of termination, they were assured that it would be sent to them by post alongwith cheque of their legal dues including four months' salary (i,e, November and December, 1995 and January and February, 1996) but they received neither the termination letter nor the cheque of their dues.
Dissatisfied with illegal termination of their services, they served a grievance notice on the Establishment. Their grievance having remained unredressed, they filed grievance petitions which were dismissed as stated above.
3. In Reply Statement the respondents' Establishment had made complete denial of factual version of the appellants' case. According to respondents' Establishment their Bakery was closed down on 6-12-1995 and services of all the employees working in the Bakery including the appellants were terminated by written order dated 7-12-1995, on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice as required by law. The specific reason for termination of their services was also spelt out in the said order.
4. Inter alia, their legal objection was that the grievance notice dated 25-4-1996 given to the respondents' Establishment was hopelessly time-barred. Consequently the grievance petitions filed after such notice were also untenable and liable to be dismissed. The respondents'
Establishment have also vehemently denied the status of the appellants being of workmen. They were not required to do any manual or clerical job. Their working as salesmen did not involve any manual or clerical labour. Therefore they were not workmen as defined by Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and I.R.O., 1969. No right was guaranteed or secured to appellants under any law, award or settlement and hence their grievance petitions were uncalled for. It is stated in the Written Statement that the appellants refused to accept written termination order by hand delivery, it was accordingly sent to them by Postal Certificate.
5. The appellants filed their affidavit-in-evidence in support of their version of the case contained in the grievance petitions. It was admitted by Masoodur Rehman in cross-examination that as a salesman it was his duty to deliver goods to verious consumers and shopkeepers and also to work in the Department. He also admitted that he used to get the salary by signing vouchers. Photocopy of one such voucher Exh.A/1 bears his signature.
' Admittedly it came from the possession of the respondents' Establishment. It is also his admission that bakery was closed from 7-12-1995 and he was not paid thereafter.
6. It is clear from the above that both the appellants were inducted in service of the respondents'
Establishment as salesmen. They have failed to prove that despite their such position and designation they were made to work .As workmen. The nature of duties that they have shown to be performing as salesmen did not involve any manual labour or clerical work. Selling bakery items to various shopkeepers and collecting money for the said items from them of course includes some sort of labour but that is only incidental to their main job of selling the bakery items. For that reason alone they cannot be put in the category of workmen. Reference may be made to Supreme Court authority reported as 1992 SCM R 227 wherein it was held that salesman does not fall within the definition of workman.
7. In view of above discussion I ani convinced that appellants were employed by the respondents'
Establishment as salesmen and they contained to work in that capacity until their services were terminated. Therefore their grievance petitions were not maintainable and they were rightly dismissed by the learned Labour Court.
8. Assuming for the sake of argument that appellants were working as workmen and not as salesmen still the termination of their services was strictly made in compliance with the requirements of law. They were not only given written, order of termination but in the said order the reason for termination was also specified inasmuch as that the bakery suffered losses and therefore it had to be closed down. Furthermore they were given one month's salary in lieu of notice. Thus there was nothing wrong with the termination order of the appellants' services.
9. As stated above the respondents' Establishment have also taken the plea of limitation saying that grievance notice given by the appellant was time-barred. As stated in section 25-A, I.R.O., it was to be given within three months of the day on which cause of grievance arose. In the present case termination of the appellants' services was the cause of grievance which took place on 7-12- 1995. As such notice was to be given within three months from the said date i,e, latest by 6-3-1996 but the grievance notice was served on 25-4-1996. Thus the grievance petitions filed by the appellants were time barred and hence not maintainable.
' For above reasons agreeing with the findings of the learned Labour Court the above two appeals are dismissed.