Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑887 of 1980, heard on 21st February, 1981.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑

‑‑ S. 2(i)‑‑Head Sorter in Postal Department‑‑Not an ordinary Sorter not a "worker" but a Civil Servant‑.Civil Servants Act (XXI of 1973), S. 2(b)(3) read with Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923), S. 2 (1)(n) and Sched II, Item (xiii) and Report on Revision of Time Test in Post Offices, Appendix C‑A, para. 2, sub‑paras (i) (b) & (ii) (b).

Aftab Shaikh for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 21st February, 1981.

The appellant, who was employed as a Head Sorter in S. R. O., Hyderbad of the Postal Department, and is said to have been drawing pay in a lower selection grade, was retired from service with effect from 10th April, 1980, upon completion of 25 years service vide order, dated 10th April, 1981, issued by the Post Master General Southern Circle. The appellant challenged the orders of his retirement by way of a grievance petition filed before the learned VIth Labour Court which has dismissed his grievance petition on the ground that the appellant is not a workman and hence his grievance petition was not maintainable. In coming to this decision, the learned Labour Court has relied upon 2 circum. stances. The first being that the appellant was a Head Sorter and was drawing pay in the lower selection grade, and secondly, the Gazette Notification, dated 3rd January, 1972, issued by the Director General, Postal Department, and published at page 28 of the Gazette of Pakistan, dated 21st January 1972, to the effect that all employees of the Postal Department in higher and lower selection grades shall be deemed to fall within the category of the employer. The appellant has now come up in appeal to this Tribunal against the said decision.

2. The Civil Servants Act, 1973, and the Rules framed thereunder, including rules relating to retirement, conduct and discipline are appli cable to all persons holding posts in connection with the affairs of the Government, excepting such persons who are specifically excluded from the definition of "Civil Servants" as contained in clause (b) section 2 of the said Act.

3. It was not disputed by Mr. Aftab Sheikh, the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was holding a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation. His contention, however, was that the appellant came within one of the exception to the definition of Civil Servants as contained in the aforesaid Act and, therefore, can be deemed to be a workman. The learned counsel relied upon sub‑clause (3) of clause (b) of section 2 of the Act and submitted that the appellant fall within the definition of workman as contained in the workmen's Com pensation Act, 1923. The learned counsel relied upon the provisions of section 2(1) (n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act read with Item (xxiii) of Schedule II of the said Act. The said Item reads as follows :‑

"(xiii) employed as an inspector, mail guard, sorter or van peon in the Railway Mail Service, or employed in any occupation ordin arily involving out door work in the Posts and Telegraphs Department; or"

4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that a Head Sorter comes within the definition of a sorter, and, therefore, should be deemed to be a workman for the purposes of not only the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, but also of the Standing Orders and the Indust rial Relations Ordinance. The learned counsel sought support for his contention from clause (b) of sub‑paragraph (i) and clause (b) of sub paragraph (ii) of paragraph 2 of Appendix C‑A of the Report on the Revision of Time Tests in the Post Office. The said 2 paragraphs read as follows :‑

"(I)(b) Where the number of sorters justified is 7 but not more than 9 one sorter should be given out side the time‑test for supervisory work and this will be the head sorter of the set.

(II)(b) Where the total number of sorters employed in a travelling section 6 or more than 6 but not more than 8 a full sorter should be given in addition to the time‑test and this man will be the head sorter of the section."

9. The above provisions should be read in the light of the opening sentence of paragraph 2 which reads; "For supervisory work the follow ing principles should be observed". This sentence together with a ref erence to supervisory work in clause (b) of sub‑paragraph (II) clearly indicates that the Head Sorter is required to perform supervisory duties. In any case, I would agree with the view taken by the learned Labour Court that a Head Sorter drawing pay in the lowers selection grade; des pite the fact that selection grades may now have been abolished, would not be deemed to be an ordinary sorter and, therefore, cannot be considered to be a workman either for the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act or the Civil Servants Act. The result is that, in my opinion, the appellant would be governed by the Civil Servants Act. 1973, and his re tirement cannot be questioned before a Labour Court or the Tribunal.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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