Find a Lawyer

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑---

‑‑S. 25‑A‑Jurisdiction of Labour Court ‑ WAPDA employee -Civil servant for purposes of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 ‑Out side jurisdiction of Labour Court‑Clerk in office of Chief Engineer Kalabagh Dam of WAPDA seeking redress in connection with his seniority=Grievance petition, held, rightly returned by Labour Court for presentation to proper forum (Service Tribunal) ‑ West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S. 17 (1‑B) read with Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4. 2.

Appeal No. 163/11 of 1982 (unreported) ref.

Kh. Tariq Masood for Appellant.

A. K. Dogar for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 26th January, 1983.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 28‑5‑1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for the fixation of his seniority was returned for presentation to the proper forum, holding that he was civil servant. The learned lower Court has observed that as the appellant is employed in clerical capacity outside and not in any Dam, he was not covered by the definition of workman given in section 2 (n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and thus was a civil servant.

2. The controversy has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 163/R of 1982 decided on 5‑12‑1982, by holding that all WAPDA employees are civil servants by virtue of section 17 (1‑B) of WAPDA Act, 1958, as amended. 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 employees of the Authority are civil servants' as 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

Singe the appellant is a civil servant, the learned lower Court had no jurisdiction. The petition was rightly dismissed. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.

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.