Find a Lawyer

Case No. 253 of 1974.

‑‑‑‑ Ss. 2(b) & 4 read with Sched. II, para. 1‑Car driver employed in Civil Defence Directorate‑A "workman" within ambit of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and not a "Civil Servant" within meaning of Ss. 2(b) hence not entitled to appeal before Tribunal.

Sharif Hussain Bukhari for Appellant.

.‑‑The appellant is a driver in the Direc torate of Civil Defence, Punjab. He has filed this appeal against incorrect fixation of his pay.

It may be stated that this Tribunal is competent to hear appeals pf civil servants only. The expression "Civil Servant" is defined in clause (b) of section 2, Punjab Administrative Tribunals, Act. Suffice it to say that all persons who are workmen within the ambit of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 have been excluded from the 'definition of the Civil Servant'. Clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 2 defines a Workman' "as any person ---------- who is ---------- employed on monthly wages not exceeding Rs. 1000 in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II". Paragraph 1 of Schedule it includes "any person who is employed, otherwise than on a Railway, in connection with the operation or maintenance of a lift or a vehicle propelled by steam or other mechanical power or by electricity".

Admittedly, the appellant does not draw pay exceeding Rs. 1,000 per month. He is undoubtedly employed in connection with the operation of car which is propelled by mechanical power. There can, therefore, be n doubt that he is a workman within the definition of the said expression in the Workmen's Compensation Act. Consequently he is not a civil servant within the meaning of clause (b) of section 2, Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act. This appeal is, therefore, incompetent and is hereby dismissed in limine.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.