MUHAMMAD TAHIR BASHIR vs PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LTD — 2026 PLC 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD TAHIR BASHIR VS PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LTD. S.2(xxxiii)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Termination from service---Grievance petition---Maintainability---Appointment as 'financial analyst'---Status of employee---Plea that petitioner/employee was not a workman---Legality---Jurisdiction under labour laws---Status of a workman being the condition precedent for invoking jurisdiction under labour laws---Scope---Whether an employee is a workman or not---Determination---The petitioner was appointed as a financial analyst by respondent No.1 in 2007, and his services were terminated in 2016; after issuance of a grievance notice, the petitioner filed a grievance petition---During the proceedings, respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed an application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., contending that the petitioner was not aworkman and, therefore, the grievance petition was not maintainable; application was allowed and the grievance petition was dismissed, prompting the petitioner to file an appeal, which was also dismissed resulting in the filing of the present constitutional petition---Moot question before the High Court was as to "whether the petitioner was a workman or not?"---Held: For maintaining a grievance petition by an employee before the forums provided under the labour laws for settlement of an industrial dispute or a case of unfair labour practice, the basic requirement was that the person approaching the said court should be a worker or a workman as contemplated in S.2(xxxiii) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and the initial burden to prove this fact lay upon the employee who has brought the lis before the court, so as to prove that his nature of work is ministerial or clerical and not managerial or administrative and this fact has to be proved by him through his oral as well as documentary evidence---The appointment letter of the petitioner transpired that not a single word had been mentioned therein about the nature of the duties assigned to the petitioner so as to determine that he was aworkman or not---Since there was nothing or the record wherefrom this could be culled out that what duties had been assigned to the petitioner as a financial analyst wherefrom his status could be determined and for proving the said fact it was mandatory that the parties should be directed to produce their respective evidence whereupon a decision could be made regarding the status of the petitioner as a workman or otherwise as at the preliminary stage no determination could be made, therefore, impugned orders were not sustainable in law---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD TAHIR BASHIR vs PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LTD — 2026 PLC 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLC