1. ' SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CJ.---The petitioner by way of this Constitutional Petition has assailed the order of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 8-2-1999.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed in the factory of Habib Sugar Mills, respondent No,3. And on 28-3-1996 he was gate stopped and was not allowed to enter the Mills.
3. According to the petitioner, he used to be present at the factoty gate on every day from 28-3-1996 to 13-6-1996 but was neither allowed to enter the factory nor was handed over any letter of suspension or transfer or removal from his service but on 13-3-1996 he was informed that his services were already terminated. The petitioner served a grievance notice through registered post which was not replied to by respondent No,3 thus, compelling the petitioner to, file a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relation Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the IRO) for his reinstatement in service with full back-benefits. The grievance petition was filed in Sindh Labour Court No,III, who by its order dated 2-4-1998 dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the decision of the Sindh Labour Court No,III, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 37(3) of the IRO before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, who . By its impugned order dated 8-2-1999 dismissed the same, upholding the decision of the Sindh Labour Court No,III. Again feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the decision of the Sindh Labour Appellate Court, the petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ' We have heard the arguments' of M/s. M.A.K. Azmati and Mehrnood Abdul the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and respondent, No,3 respectively.
4. ' It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that he was a worker and throughout his service in the establishment of respondent No,3, he had been carrying out manual and labour work. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he did not enjoy any supervisory power so as to come within the definition of "employer" and that both the forums below had completely misread and misconstrued the evidence on record in not holding the petitioner to be an employee, which has resulted in ' great injustice and prejudice to the petitioner. Mr. M.A:K. Azmati further submitted that merely designating or calling a person as a "supervisor" would not be sufficient to hold him as a "supervisor" or "officer" but the same was to be decided on the basis of the duties which the person was actually performing and reiterated that during the entire period of his service with respondent No,3. The petitioner had performed manual and physical labour and did not enjoy any supervisory powers. For his above contention, he placed reliance on the case of National Bank of Pakistan v.
5. Punjab Labour Court No, V; Faisalabad and others 1993 SCM R 672) Mr. Azmati further submitted that in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction, this Court was required only to set right or correct any error, omission, or wrong committed by any of the two forums below. He further submitted that this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction could interfere with the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Labour Court, if it was found that the same was based on misreading of the evidence or extraneous material. It was further contended that this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 199 of the Constitution could strike down an order passed by a subordinate Court or forum as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. In support of his above contention, he placed reliance on the case of Shahjehan and others v. Syed Amjad Ali and others 2000 SMCR 88).
6. ' Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was never a worker but was performing duties as in charge of stiching department, wherein he used to supervise forty
(40) workers. He further submitted that none of his duties involved any clerical, manual, skilled or unskilled work and that he did not come within the definition of "workman" as defined in section 2(i) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance and thus he could not approach the Labour Court under section 25(A) of the IRO, Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani also objected to the maintainability of this Constitutional Petition and submitted that a Constitutional, Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution would be competent only when it was shown that the impugned judgment/order was without jurisdiction or without lawful authority or it was based on no evidence at all he further submitted that neither in the memorandum of petition nor during the course of arguments, the petitioner has been able to point out lack of jurisdiction or illegality, or that the orders of the two forums below were without lawful authority or that they were based on no evidence at all, absence of which would not confer jurisdiction on this Court to proceed with this Constitutional Petition. In support of the above, he placed reliance on the case of Qayum Nawaz and others v. N.-W.F.P. Small Industries Development Board and others 2000 PLC 215). Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani further submitted that it is a settled principle that a person who approaches a Court on the basis of an averment that he is a' "workman" as defined in section 2(i) of the Standing- Orders Ordinance, the burden of proof that he was a " workman" and was performing manual, physical or clerical work lay on him and it was not for the employer to disprove that he was not an employee. In support of the above, he placed reliance on the case of National Bank of Pakistan versus Punjab Labour Court No, V (1993 SCM R 672), Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani relying on the case of Karachi Shipyard and Engineerir' Works Limited v. Abdul Ghaffar and 2 others (1993 SCMR 1511) submitted that in exercise of the powers under Article 199 of the Constitution, this Court would not substitute its own finding in place of the finding given by the forums below on a question of facts solely because from the evidence on record another finding could be inferred or arrived at by the Courts/forums below..
7. ' We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective contentions as well as the case-law relied upon.
8. ' The petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in view of the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance which empowers a "workman" to approach the Labour Court under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance for redress of his grievance on account of illegal termination of his service. For invoking the jurisdiction of Labour Court, the person has to satisfy that he was a "workman" as defined in section 2(i) of the Standing Order Ordinance. It was therefore, necessary for the petitioner to have brought on record satisfactory and plausible material to establish beyond any doubt that during the course of his employment in the establishment of respondent No,3, he was carrying on manual, physical or clerical work of skilled or unskilled nature and that he was a "workman" as defined in the Standing Orders Ordinance.
9. However, the petitioner failed to adduce any such reliable and satisfactory evidence to establish the factum of his being a "workman" during the course of his employment in the establishment of respondent No,3. Reference may be made to his evidence, wherein he stated that he himself used to work on machine in the stitching/cutting department but failed to adduce any evidence to prove that he ever worked on any machine, or was even provided with a machine. Respondent No,3 had brought on record termination letter "wherein the petitioner was described as "supervisor/incharge of the stitching/cutting department". The contents of this letter were not challenged or controverted and have gone un-rebutted. On the other hand, respondenk PLC (Lebow) witness alongwith his affidavit-in-evidence produced two applications for grant of leave and two office memos. The two applications for grant of leave which appear at pages 47 and 49 of the Labour Court's file are in the hand-writing of the petitioner describing himself to be a "supervisor". In the two office memos appearing at pages 51 and 53, whereby leave was granted/sanctioned to the petitioner, he was also described as "supervisor". This being the position, the "finding of the two forums below that the petitioner did not qualify to be a "workman" as he was performing duties of supervisory nature was not in any manner the result of misreading or misconstruing the evidence on record or was contrary to the evidence adduced by the parties. The said finding also cannot be said to be based on any extraneous material so as to render it as illegal, contrary to record and liable to be interfered with. The duty to establish that he was doing manual, clerical or physical work and was not carrying out work of supervisory nature was on the petitioner as per the observations made in the case of National Bank of Pakistan versus Punjab Labour Court No,V, Faisalabad and others (1993 SCM R 672), which he failed to discharge and the two forums below rightly concluded that he was not a "workman" or "worker".
10. ' From whatever evidence has been produced by the parties in the Sindh Labour Court No,III, it is established beyond any doubt that the petitioner was performing supervisory functions as he used to oversee the work of the workers in the stitching/cutting department and as he was performing, the functions of supervisory nature, he would . Be secluded from the definition of "workman" and "worker" as given in Standing Order 2(i) of the Standing Order Ordinance and section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance thus being deprived from invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 25 of the I.R.O., ' Upon the above discussion, we are satisfied beyond any shadow of doubt that the petitioner was not a "workman" and Sindh Labour Court No,III as well as Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal in holding the petitioner not to be a "workman" but "supervisor" did not commit any illegality, misreading or misconstruing of the evidence or relying on any extraneous material. It may be pointed out that the case-law relied upon by Mr. M.A.K. Azmati in support of his contentions is of no help to the petitioner and does not advance his case.
11. ' There can be no dispute with the observations made in the case of National Bank of Pakistan v.
12. Punjab Labour Court No,V (1993 SCM R 672) regarding the basis for determining whether a particular person was a "workman/worker" or employer but the petitioner failed to adduce evidence to establish himself as "worker/workman". There is also no cavil with the principle laid down in the case of Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Ltd. Versus Abdul Ghaffar and others (1993 SCM R 511) that this Court' in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot substitute the finding of the forum below with its own finding but can only interfere if it finds that the finding was based on misreading, non-reading or was contrary to the record or the forum below exercised jurisdiction illegally or the findings were contrary to the evidence on record. In the present case, the findings of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Sindh Labour Court were neither in exercise of jurisdiction illegally, nor were based on misreading, non-reading or contrary to the evidence on record and the same have been upheld thus completely ruling out the exercise of this Court substituting the findings with its own findings . The observations made in the case of Shahjehan and others v. Syed Amjad Ali and others (2000 SCM R 88) are to the same affect as made in the case of Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works versus Abdul Ghaffar and others (supra) and it has already been held above that the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction by two forums below as well as failed to establish that the findings thereof suffered from any illegality or were contrary to or in ignorance of the evidence on record or based on extraneous material so as to be liable to be interfered with by this Court to exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
13. ' Even from above discussion, we are satisfied that the finding of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal holding the order as the Sindh Labour Court does not require to be interfered with.
14. ' By a short order, we had dismissed this Constitutional Petition in limine alongwith the listed application for the reasons to be recorded later, These are the reasons for the said short order.