Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 77 (R) of 1982, decided on 7th April, 1983.

‑‑S. 4 read with Civil Servants Act (LXXVI of 1973), S. 2 (b) (ii) "Civil servant" ‑ Godown‑keeper in Rationing Cell of Pakistan Ordnance Factory‑" Workman" as defined in Sched. II (xxvi) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and not a civil servant‑Such employee, held, cannot seek redress before Service Tribunal against discharge from service.

M. Farooq Kiani for Appellant.

Syed M. Shahudul Haque for the State.

Date of hearing : 5th April 1983.

‑The appellant was a senior godown‑keeper in the Rationing Cell of P. O. F., Wah. He was served with a charge‑sheet on 27‑10‑1981, the charge being shortage of 70 k. g. of atta with intent to misappropriate. The appellant furnished his reply dated 10‑11‑1981. His explanation was not found satisfactory and he was subsequently served with a show‑cause notice dated 12‑11‑1981. He furnished his reply to the said show cause on 26‑11‑1981. Vide Daily Part‑II order No. 404/2, dated 19‑1‑1982, he was "discharged" from service on disciplinary grounds and struck off strength with effect from 10‑1‑1982. He preferred a departmental appeal against his termination of service on 9‑2‑1982 which was rejected vide letter dated 24‑3‑1982. He preferred his present appeal before us on 28‑4‑1982 under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.

2. We heard the learned counsel from both sides. While the learned counsel for the appellant arguing before us emphatically urged to have the appellant treated as civil servant, the learned counsel for the respondents rebutted this point. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the respondents referred to Schedule II (xxvi) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which is reproduced;

"employed in the handling or transport of goods in, or within the precinct of‑

(a) any warehouse or other place in which goods are stored and in which on any one day of the preceding twelve months ten or more persons have been so employed ; or

(b) any market in which on any one day of the preceding twelve months one hundred or more persons have been so employed ; ".

3. Having given the matter our serious thought, we have come to the conclusion that the appellant cannot be treated as a civil servant within the meaning of Civil Servants Act, 1973 and that he is, in fact a workman. Such being the case the present appeal is not competent before us. The appellant should seek redress in an appropriate forum. His appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

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.