JUDGMENT SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.- The petitioner herein was appointed as Technical Sales Officer on 2.10.1988, by the Boots Company (Pakistan) Ltd. It was on 4.3.1998, when he was informed that his services were terminated with immediate effect paying one month salary in lieu of notice. After giving a grievance notice under Section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. He approached Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, through petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The petition was contested by the respondent inter alia that he was neither a "worker" nor a "workman" and could not approach the Labour Court. Jurisdiction of the Labour Court in the matter was thus objected to. The petition was tried by the learned Labour Court and was eventually accepted on 5.4,2000, setting aside the order of termination and reinstating him in service with all back benefits. The respondents preferred an appeal thereagainst before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which was accepted on 1.2.2002 by the learned Chairman, dismissing the grievance petition filed by the petitioner. Dispute and issue of identical nature is involved in the other two petitions i.e. W.P. No. 6845/02 and W.P. No. 6874/02, which also assail the same impugned order of the learned Tribunal, In view of the common features of the petitions, these have been heard together and being disposed of as such.
2. Since the moot point in the matter was as to whether the petitioner could invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, the/learned counsel for the petitioner has supported the view taken by the Labour Court and cited judgments referred to by the said Court, whereas the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the view taken by the learned Chairman Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, was correct and consistent with the law laid down by the Courts, applicable to such cases, It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is neither the designation nor the quantum of salary paid to an employee, but the criteria is nature of the duty actually performed which determines the status of an employee. Reference in this context has been made to Central Manager Hotel International, Lahore and another v. Bashir A. Malik and others (PLD 1986 SC 103), Warner Lambart (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Sindh Labour Court No. 3, Karachi and another (PLJ 1979 Kar. 263), Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. v. Muhammad Humayun Khan and 2 others (1983 PLC 498), Brooke Bond Pakistan Ltd. v. Conciliator appointed by Govt, of Sindh and others (PLJ 1977 SC 229) and National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad and others (1993 SCMR 672). Referring to the statement of the petitioner made by him before the Labour Court, it is contended that the petitioner had been performing duties of manual and physical nature, such as carrying of a bag full of medicines, visiting doctors, clinics and hospitals for the introduction and promotion of products of the company. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has cited Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Employees Union, Dacca and others (PLD 1961 SC 403), Syed Zahid Hussan v. M/s. Hoechst (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi (1980 PLC 880) M/s. Opal Laboratories Ltd. v. Muhammad Moinul Islam (1983 PLC 509), Syed Matloob Hassan Hassan v. Brooke Bond Pakistan Ltd., Lahore (1992 SCMR 227), M/s. Rafhan Best Foods Limited through Human Resources Manager and Sales Manager and another v. Nasir Jamal Qureshi (2001 PLC 396), M/s. Taj Bakery Jackson Bazar v. Muhammad Aslam Khan and another (2002 PLC 38), and unreported judgments (L.A. No. 144/95 and L.A. No. 18/96), dated 20.12.1995 and 15.9.1996, respectively) by late Munawar Ahmad Mirza, Chief justice, Baluchistan High Court (as he then was).
3. As mentioned above, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was workman within the meaning of law and since his termination was ordered without complying mandatory provisions of standing order 12 of ordinance VI of 1968, he had jurisdiction in the matter. The contra view, however, was taken by the learned chairman punjab labour appellate tribunal, while accepting the appeal filed by the respondents, who placed reliance upon Pakistan tabacco company ltd. v. Pakistan tobacco company employees union, dacca and other (PLD 1961 Sc 403)Ms. Opal laboratories ltd. v. Muhammad moinul islam (1983 PLC 509), Syed Zahid appointed by Govt, of Sindh and others (PL) 1977 SC 229) and National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad and others (1993 SCMR 672). Referring to the statement of the petitioner made by him before the Labour Court, it is contended that the petitioner had been performing duties of manual and physical nature, such as carrying of a bag full of medicines, visiting doctors, clinics and hospitals for the introduction and promotion of products of the company. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has cited Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Employees Union, Dacca and others (PLD 1961 SC 403), Syed Zahid Hussan v. M/s. Hoechst (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi (1980 PLC 880)
M/s. Opal Laboratories Ltd. v. Muhammad Moinul Islam (1983 PLC 509), Syed Matloob Hassan Hassan v. Brooke Bond Pakistan Ltd., Lahore (1992 SCMR 227), M/s. Rafhan Best Foods Limited through Human Resources Manager and Sales Manager and another v. Nasir Jamal Qureshi (2001 PLC 396), M/s. Taj Bakery Jackson Bazar v. Muhammad Aslam Khan and another (2002 PLC 38), and unreported judgments (L.A. No. 144/95 and L.A. No. 18/96), dated 20.12. I 995 and 15.9.1996, respectively) by late Munawar Ahmad Mirza, Chief justice, Baluchistan High Court (as he then was).
3. As mentioned above, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was workman within the meaning of law and since his termination was ordered without complying mandatory provisions of Standing Order 12 of Ordinance VI of 1968, he had jurisdiction in the matter. The contra view, however, was taken by the learned Chairman Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, while accepting the appeal filed by the respondents, who placed reliance upon Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Employees Union, Dacca and others (PLD 1961 SC 403), M/s. Opal Laboratories Ltd. v. Muhammad Moinul Islam (1983 PLC 509), Syed Zahid Hussan v. M/s. Hoechst (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi (1980 PLC 380), Abdul Baqi v.
Messrs Muhammad Faruq Ahmad Co. Ltd. (1988 PLC 88) and Rehmat Ali v. The Security Papers Ltd.
And another (PLD 1982 Karachi 913) and the view taken by late Munawar Ahmad Mirza, ]., that the petitioner was not a workman and could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court
4. I have considered the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on the record and the precedents cited by them, am persuaded to subscribe and affirm the view taken by the learned Chairman Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in the matter. There is no. Cavil that mere designation of an employee may not be the determining factor as to his status and the nature of job and duty is to be kept in view. The petitioner, herein, was employed as officer in the organization. He enjoyed that status so long he remained employed there and availed the privileges. He obtained training in Srilanka at the expense of the company. He was not merely a Medical or Sales Representative or a Salesman. He was not performing the duty of the nature as could bring him within the ambit of workman/worker. Mere carrying of few medicines in a bag to introduce it for the promotion of the same to doctors, clinics or hospitals would not change his position and status. He was an officer in the company by all means engaged for promotion of the pharmaceutical products of the company. In M/s. Opal Laboratories Ltd. v.
Muhammad Moinul Islam (1983 PLC 509), a learned Division Bench of the Sindh High Court after considering number of precedents on the subject held that a medical representative of a Company had no manual or clerical work to perform and such a salesman did not fall within the definition of workman. Similar view was taken in Rehmat Ali v. The Security Papers Ltd. And another (PLD 1982 Kar. 913) and Abdul Baqi v. Messrs Muhammad Faruq Ahmad Co. Ltd. (1988 PLC 88) and Syed Zahid Hussan v. M/s. Hoechst (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi (1980 PLC 380). Late Munawar Ahmad Mirza, ]., the then Chief Justice Baluchistan High Court had taken the view that Sales Promotion Officer of Pharmaceutical Companies were not workmen within the meaning of law. Thus preponderance of judicial pronouncements support the view taken by the learned Chairman Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, in the matter. It may be observed that the view taken in Brooke Bond case (supra) was considered in Matloob Hassan (supra) by a much larger Bench, which was later in point of time and will have the binding effect. Be that as it may, the petitioners, herein, were a category apart, officers in the company, and not Salesmen by any standard. They, thus, could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Tribunal.
As a result of the above, this petition has no merit, it is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.