Find a Lawyer

West Pakistan

--S. 17 (l-B)--WAPDA employees-Labour Court's jurisdiction in respect of - Labour Court entertaining petition of WAPDA employee and passing orders thereon-Unlike Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) W APDA Act, not adopting definition of civil servants from any other law and exceptions in definition of civil servants in Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) not applicable to employees of WAPDA-WAPDA employees, held, civil servants for purposes of Service Tribunals Act, 1913-Labour Courts orders without jurisdiction - Held further, subsection (1-A) does not in any manner, control subsection (1-B) of S. 17.

Muhammad Khan's case P L D 1978 Lah. 781 ; WAPDA v. Commissioner for Social Security P L D 1977 Lah. 1156 ; Muhammad Duryab Yusuf Qureshi's case P L D 1979 Lah. 406 ; Muhammad Salim . Khan's case P L D 1976 Lah. 492 ; Ch. Ikramullahis case Writ Petition No. 2,642 of 1976 ; I.C.A No. 150 of 1976 ; P L D 1981 S C 249 and Abdul Wahid Khan's case 1981 S C M R 325 ref.

Zia Mahmood Mirza for Petitioner.

Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 21st September, 1982.

This judgment will dispose of the following writ petitions. They have all been ;roved by WAPDA challenging the jurisdiction .of the Labour Court

2. The contesting respondents are all employees of WAPDA. Umar Khan was a Junior Clerk and Muhammad Ashraf Naeem a Meter Reader when their services were dispensed with. Khalil Arkhtar was a Driver when his services were terminated. George Masih, Store Cooly. Shafiqur Rehman Chwokidar and Muhammad Malik, Saeed Ahmad Malik and Abdur Rashid Meter Readers were dismissed from service. Miss Akhtar Roseline, Telepnone Operator felt aggrieved of being reduced in rank while Nazir Ahmad Pehlwan L.F.M. 11 was transferred. Muhammad Ali Shah a Lineman was suspended from service pending a formal inquiry. All these persons challenged the orders against them in the Labour Courts and the Labour Courts have entertained their petitions and passed separate orders in respect of these persons. WAPDA has challenged the orders of the Labour Courts in the present writ petitions on the ground that the contesting respondents were civil servants under section 17 (1-B) of the WAPDA Act and that the Labour Courts had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter of the WAPDA employees.

3. Section 17 (1-B) of WAPDA Act reads as follows :-

"Service under the Authority is hereby declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under, the Authority, not being a person who is on deputation to the Authority from any Province shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973."

A plain reading of this provision shows that every person holding a post under WAPDA except for those on deputation to it are deemed to be civil servants for the purposes of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 The Labour Courts, on the other hand, appear to have adopted the view that since the WAPDA Act had declared such persons to be civil servants for the purposes of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the definition of a civil servant as given in the Service Tribunals Act will govern the case of the WAPDA employees. I am unable to subscribe to this view. Unlike Service Tribunal Act which adopts the definition of the civil servants given in the Civil Servants Act, 1973, WAPDA Act does not adopt the definition of civil servants from any other law. The definition of the civil servant given in the WAPDA Act is independent of any other definition of civil servant given in any other law and does not need to be tested by reference to any such law. It declares all persons holding a post under the Authority with out any exception to be civil servants for the purposes of the Services Tribunals Act, 1973. Therefore, the exceptions made in the definition of the civil servants in the Civil Servants Act do not apply to the employees/C of WAPDA.

4. On behalf of the respondents a judgment of this Court in Muhammad Khan's case (P L D 1978 Lah.781) has been referred to. This judgment as also the judgment in the case of WAPDA v. Commissioner for Social Security (P L D 1977 Lah.1156) have already been distinguished in the case of Muhammad Duryab Yusuf Qureshi (P L D 1979 Lah.406 ), but I may respectfully add that the facts of Muhammad Khans case and the opinion expressed therein are not attracted to the issue now raised. The said Muhammad Khan was on deputation with WAPDA from Government of the Punjab. Section 17 (1-B) of WAPDA Act, therefore, could not declare him to be in service of Pakistan and to be a civil servant once again. He was a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act and the definition given in the Civil Servants Act was applicable to him and not the definition given in the WAPDA Act. As regards 1977 case, I can do no better than to follow the distinction made in Muhammad Daryab Yusuf Qureshi's case.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of WAPDA, on the other hand, relies on the case of Muhammad Salim Khan (P L D 1976 Lah.492) which was followed in Muhammad Duryab Yusuf Qureshi's case. Copies of the judgment in Writ Petition No. 2642/76 and L-C.A. No. 150/76 in Ch. Ikram Ullah's, case have been produced in Court to show that employees of WAPDA are civil servants for the-purposes of the Service Tribunals Act. The orders of the Supreme Court remanding Appeals Nos. 49 and 50 of 1977 (P L D 1981 S C 249 at 261) to the Service Tribunal - have also been referred to. Similarly reliance has been placed on Abdul Wahid Khan's case (1981 S C M R 325), The learned counsel for the respondents have however argued that in none of these cases the persons affected were workmen. I am afraid, in my view no such distinction is available in the definition of the civil servant under section 17 (1-B) of the WAPDA Act, although the Civil Servants Act, 1973 makes certain exclusions.

6. It has been argued by Sh. Rafiq Ahmad, Advocate that section 17 (1-B) is controlled by 17 (1-A) and matters of retirement or removal from service alone could be agitated before the Service Tribunal. I am afraid, there is no force in this argument. The terms and conditions referred to under section 17 (1) have been modified under subsection (I-A)_"not withstanding anything contained in subsection (1). Subsection (1-B), on the other hand, declares "service under the Authority" to be service of Pakistan and "every person holding a post under the Authority . to be a civil servant for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973." Subsection (1-A), therefore, does not, in any manner, control subsection (I-B).

7. It was further argued by Sh. Rafiq Ahmad Advocate that there are thousands of employees working under WAPDA and if they were to take their grievances to the Service Tribunal, the Tribunal would simply be flooded with the grievances of WAPDA employees. The learned counsel argues that the Legislature could not have intended that such a situation should arise. I am afraid, the question of logistics cannot contribute to the interpretation of a statute.

8. In view of the above considerations, I am of the view that the contesting respondents as holders of posts under the Authority, are civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and the Labour Courts have-passed orders without jurisdiction and lawful authority. . The impugned orders are, therefore, of no legal effect. The writ petitions are allowed but the parties are to bear their own costs.

Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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