Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---- ---Ss. 2(xxvii), 25-A & 38(3)--"Workman" whether or not an employee a workman--Onus of proof--Designation such as that employee not appearing to be a workman--Onus of proof, in circumstances, held, upon employee to prove that he was covered by definition of workman-­Bank Manager--Not adducing any evidence about his duties in support of his contention to be a workman--Held: Rightly presumed and declared as not a workman by Labour Court. 1980 P L C 140 ref. 1979 P L C 239 rel. Aqa Asif Jaffry for Appellant. Mian Abdur Rashid for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th November, 1984. JUDGMENT The decision, dated 11-6-1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that he had failed to establish that he was a workman. 2. Admittedly, the appellant did not lead any evidence on the point. It has been argued that the onus was upon the respondents to prove that the appellant was not a workman. The learned counsel for the appellant relies upon 1980 P L C 140. My learned predecessor held that the onus was upon the employer to prove that the employee was not a workman but he in another bank's case reported in 1979 P L C 239 held that where the employee described himself as officer Grade-11, the onus was upon him to show that he was a…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492