' By this petition the decision dated 16-8-2001 of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi has been challenged by which the appeal filed by the respondent No,1 was allowed and the order of the Vth Sindh Labour Court allowing the grievance petition of the petitioner with full back-benefits was set aside.
' The facts as alleged in the grievance petition are that the petitioner was employed as a salesman with the respondent No,
1. His salary for January and February, 1998 was withheld for which the petitioner gave a legal notice to the respondent No,l. The respondent No,1 instead of paying salary made false allegation of misappropriation against the petitioner. By oral order service of the petitioner was terminated on 25-2-1998. The petitioner served grievance notice under section 25-A of the I.R.O. 1969 on the respondent No,1 and having no response filed the grievance petition in the Vth Sindh Labour Court at Karachi. The matter was contested by the respondent No,1. The learned Labour Court after recording evidence and hearing the advocates of the parties passed order dated 7-3-2000 by which the grievance petition was PIC (Labdur) allowed with full back-benefits.
The respondent No,1 being aggrieved filed the appeal before the respondent No,2 which was allowed by the impugned decision.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent No,2 has based its decision on two grounds, firstly that the grievance notice was not served as required under section 25-A of I.R.O. 1969 and secondly that the petitioner was salesman and thus was not a workman within the meaning of clause (i) of section 2 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) -Ordinance, 1968. He contended that such decision of the learned respondent No,2 was based on no evidence and has stated that the impugned decision be set aside and the order of the Vth Sindh Labour Court be maintained. He has relied upon the case of Mustehkam Cement Ltd v. Abdul Rasheed, 1998 P.L.C.
172. Forbes Campbell and Company Ltd. Karachi v. Habibur Rehman, 1982 SCM R 651 and Syed Matloob Hassan v. Brooke Bond Pakistan Ltd. 1992 SCM R 227. Mr. Khadam Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent No,1 has supported the impugned decision and has relied upon the case of Muhammad Yaqoob v. Rooti Corporation Pakistan Ltd. 1980 PLC 746. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and have gone through the record. At the outset, we find that in para 1 of the grievance petition under section 25-A of I.R.O. 1969 filed by the petitioner in Vth Sindh Labour Court at Karachi, the petitioner has alleged that he was employed by the respondent No,1 in the year 1971 as worker and thereafter due to his good conduct, devotion to his duties and over all performance was promoted as salesman and as such till illegal termination remained in the said job. The petitioner in his affidavit in evidence has reiterated the contents of his grievance petition.
In the judgment of Syed Matloob Hassan (Supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner it was held that the salesman is not a workman within the meaning of clause (1) of section 2 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The petitioner in his grievance petition as well as in his affidavit in 'evidence beford the learned Labour Court has admitted himself to be the salesman and the salesman pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan referred to above has been held to be not a workman. Therefore, no grievance petition could have been maintained by him. The learned respondent No,2 in his decision has found the petitioner to be a salesman and thus has set aside the order of the learned Labour Court which decision in our view is unexceptionable. In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.