Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑353 of 1982/Pb decided on 20th February, 1983.

West Pakistan

--‑‑ S. 17 (I‑A)‑Removal from service‑Employee of Government Public Works Department serving on deputation with WAPDA WAPDA authorities not competent to take action against such employee and he could not be treated as civil servant‑Removal order,‑ held, rightly set aside by Labour Court‑Contention that such employee was not a workman‑Not argued in written statement before Labour Court‑Employee whether or not a workman -Mixed question of facts and law‑Held, cannot be raised for first time in appeal‑Appeal dismissed‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 37.

Raja Muhammad Sadiq v. WA PDA P L D 1978 Lah. 738 rel.

Mian‑ Iqbal Khalid for Appellant.

Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 14th March,' 1983.

This appeal emanates from the decision dated 20th May, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer. Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the order of removal of the respondent from service and the order of dismissal of his departmental appeal were declared as void and illegal.

2. The respondent was originally employed in Public Works Depart ment of Punjab Government and was sent to WAPDA on deputation and was working at Shahdara Power Station as Gas Turbine Operator Grade‑1. He was sent to Abu Dhabi on deputation .for two years vide order Exh. P. 1 dated 10th July, 1974. On the expiry the period was extended to one year more.. On the expiry of the said period the respondent applied for two years extension. He was asked vide order Exh. D‑1 to report back on duty in Pakistan on 31st December, 1977. According to the respondent, no such letter reached him. On 1st April, 1979 on reaching Pakistan the respondent applied for retirement vide Exh. P. 4 followed by a reminder Exh. P. 9 dated 27th February, 1980. Show cause notice was published at the behest of W APDA in Pakistan Times on 5th February, 1980 followed by the order of removal of his service Exh. P. 10 dated 20th February, 1980. The respondent preferred a depart mental appeal and on its failure on 6th May, 1980 communicated on 16th May, 1980 he served a grievance notice on 11th August, 1980 which was followed by the grievance petition.

3. The only point involved in the case is that since the respondent was not an employee of WAPDA being admittedly a deputationist, the appellant was not competent to take any action against him. Since he was a deputationist, for the same reason he was not a civil servant. It A was clearly held in Raja Muhammad Sadiq v. WAPDA (P L D 1978 Lah.738) that status of employees of electricity department transferred to WAPDA remained as Government Servants and they did not become WAPDA employees. It was also held that WAPDA was not competent to remove such employees from service. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to say anything effective on the point, nor has cited any ‑authority in which contrary view may. have been taken. Learned counsel for the respondent has also argued that no show‑cause notice was served upon the respondent, nor any enquiry was held. These contentions are forceful. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show that necessary procedure was followed. He has, however, argued that the respondent is not a workman. No such objection was taken in the written statement, therefore, the respondent had no need to lead evidence on toe point. This is a mixed question of fact and law; therefore cannot be raised for the first time during arguments of the appeal.

4. As upshot of the observations made above. I do not find any, force in the appeal and dismiss it.

A. E. 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.