Find a Lawyer

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑--

--‑‑Ss. 25‑A' & 37‑Grievance petition‑Adjudication by Labour Court‑Practice and procedure‑WAPDA employee seeking remedy against non‑payment of pay of higher post duties whereof performed-No objection raised by respondent in written statement that petitioner was a civil servant hence could not invoke jurisdiction of Labour Court‑Question whether petitioner was a civil servant depending upon fact if he came within exceptions of definition of "civil servant" in S. 2 of Civil Servants Act, 1973‑Labour Court without evidence regarding nature of duties of petitioner and other relevant facts dismissing grievance petition holding petitioner as a civil servant‑‑Petitioner, in circumstances, held, prejudiced for not being allowed opportunity of producing evidence‑Order of Labour Court set aside by Appellate .Tribunal and case remanded for re‑decision.

Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Appellant.

Abdur Rashid Bhatti for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 28th February, 1983.

This appeal emanates from the decision dated 12‑5‑1981passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for the recovery of wages amounting to Rs. 3,950 was dismissed solely on the ground that he was a civil servant.

2. The case of the appellant is that he had been working as senior clerk from 20‑8‑1971 to 8‑3‑1974 but he was paid the wages of the post of junior clerk. The perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent reveals that no objection was taken that the appellant was a civil servant, but in spite of it the learned lower Court dismissed the petition on this ground. This is true that the appellant is not employed in the power wing but even certain employees working in water wing come within the exceptions of the definition of civil servants, as defined in section 2 of the Civil Servants Act. Persons employed in manufacturing process can be said to be workmen as defined in the Factories Act. Pumping of water comes within the definition of manufacturing process' as defined in the Factories Act. This is not known what work is done in Watershed where the appellant is employed. If the objection of opportunity a civil servant' had been taken in the written statement, the appellant being aware of it would have led evidence on this point. If the learned lower court wanted to decide whether the appellant was or was not a civil servant and thus the court had or had not jurisdiction, evidence on the point should have been invited thereafter, the point should have been decided. By being not given opportunity to produce evidence on the point the appellant has been prejudiced.

3. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugued decision of the learned lower Court, remand the case for re‑decision to the light of the observations made above.

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.