Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 71 (K) of 1980, decided on 22nd June, 1983.

‑‑ S. 2 (1) (b) and Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Ss. 2 (a) & 4 read with Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923), S. 2 (1) (n)‑"Civil servant"‑Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal -Assistant Station Master of Pakistan Railways‑Not employed in any administrative, district ‑or divisional office of Railways‑A work man‑Not a civil servant‑Cannot invoke jurisdiction of Service Tribunal‑Labour Division Government of Pakistan being con cerned with administration of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 advised to consider making of appropriate amendment in definition of "workman" if concept of "administrative, district or divisional office" in Pakistan Railway Administration has undergone any change.

Syed Rashid Ahmed for Appellant.

Abdul Aziz for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 5th June, 1983.

‑The preliminary question involved herein is whether the appellant, who was a railway servant and was at the relevant time employed as Assistant Station Master at Padidan railway station, was a "workman" within the definition of clause (n) of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and as such not a "civil servant" within the meaning of clause (a) of section 2 of the Service Tribunals Act. 1973 read with clause (b) of sub section (1) of section 2 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, to enable him to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal by way of appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.

2. Omitting the irrelevant portions of clause (n). it would read as follows :‑

(n) "workman" means any person ............ ...."' ............... who is‑

(i) a railway servant as defined in section 3 of the Railways Act, 1890.

not permanently employed in any administrative, district and sub‑divisional office‑‑‑of a railway ; and

not employed in any such capacity, as is specified in Schedule II,

,

or,

(ii) xx xx xx

xxx xx xxx''

A bare reading of the definition given in clause (n) above shows that every person who is a railway servant within the definition of section 3 of the Railways Act, 1890, is a "workman" if he is not permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub‑divisional office of the Railways, and is also not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. In other words, even that railways servant who is employed in any administrative, district or sub‑divisional office of the Railways will also be "workman" if he is employed in any such capacity, as is specified in Schedule II ibid. The appellant may not be employed in any capacity as is specified in Schedule II ibid, but since he is not employed in any administrative, district or sub‑divisional office of the Rail ways, he is a "workman" within 'the definition of clause (n) ibid, and a such, is not a civil servant according to the definition given In. the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and Civil Servants Act, 1973.

3. Since the appellant is not a civil servant, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain his appeal, which is dismissed, but we pass no order as to costs.

4. We were informed that in the present set‑up of the railway administration, the concept of administrative, district or sub‑divisional office" of Railways has undergone a little change. If this is so, then the Labour Division, which is concerned with the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act, may consider appropriate amendment in the e definition of "workman". A copy of this order should also be sent to the Labour Division and the Railways Division for examination of the issue.

5. Parties to be informed accordingly.

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.