Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. OA‑764 of 1982/Pb., decided on 21st March, 1983.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑--

--‑‑S. 25‑A read with West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S. 17 (1‑B)‑WAPDA employees -Civil servants for purposes of Service Tribunals Act, 1973‑Cannot seek remedy of grievance petition before Labour Court.

F. U. Malik v. WAPDA Civil Petition No. 163/11 of 1982 (unreported) rel.

Mian Mahmood Hussain for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 15th March, 1983.

This appeal has been preferred against the decision dated 25‑11‑1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. On account of being convicted in a criminal case, the appellant was dismissed from service. When he was acquitted by the High Court he was reinstated and the period of imprisonment was treated as spent on leave. Later on 10‑2‑1981 period of his imprisonment was treated as leave without pay and recovery proceedings were initiated against him, whereupon he had brought a grievance petition. The learned lower Court dismissed it on the ground that service of grievance notice was not proved.

3. The appeal fails on the ground that this tribunal has no jurisdiction as the appellant is a civil servant. The Supreme Court has held in F. U A Malik v. WAPDA decided on 5‑12‑1982 (Civil Petition No. 163/R of 1982) that all WAPDA employees are civil servants for the purposes of Service Tribunals Act. The observations made are as under :‑

"We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and find that there could be no plausible excuse for the petitioner to have not availed of his right as a Government Servant under the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958 (West Pakistan Act No. XXXI of 1958) because all the employees of the Authority are civil servants' a; relevant section of the aforesaid Act, as amended, reads as under :‑

It has been further observed. :‑‑

We agree with the finding of the learned Service Tribunal that the petitioner holding very responsible post of Senior Budget & Accounts Officer should have been aware of the provisions of section 17 (1‑B) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 as amended, and that the petitioner was rightly refused the condonation of delay in filing his appeal."

Relying upon the ruling cited above, I hold that the appellant is a civil servant and thus this Tribunal has no jurisdiction:

4. As upshot of the observations made above, I direct the return of the memo. of appeal to the appellant for presentation to the proper forum.

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.