Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. GA-664 of 1981/Pb., decided on 12th February, 1983.

(a) West Pakistan Water and Power development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)----

-- S. 17 (1-B) read with civil servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S. 2 (b)-WAPDA employee - Whether a civil servant- Determining factor-Definition of term "civil servant" under S. 2 (b) of Civil Servants Act, 1973-Assistant Lineman engaged in distribution of electricity covered by definition of "workman" in clause (xix) u Sched. 1) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923-Could not be treated as a civil servant-Entitled to grievance petition before Labour Court and not within jurisdiction of Service Tribunal-Service . Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Ss. 2 (a) & 4 and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25-A.

(b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)----

-- S. 1(4) (c), proviso Il and S.O. 15 (5) read with West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S. 18 -WAPDA -Independent Statutory body not running under full control of Government -WAPDA Efficiency and Discipline Rules not Statutory Rules-Conditions of exemption from West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordi nance, 1968 not fulfilled-Suspension of WAPDA employee beyond 4 days, held, hit by provisions of S.O. 15 (5).

Mohd. Zaman Qureshi for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 1st February, 1983.

This appeal emanates from the decision dated 17th, November, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for challeng ing the order of his suspension was accepted with back benefits.

2. The appellant has given duty to the respondent but has challenged the order of the learned lower Court. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent is a civil servant, therefore, Labour Courts have no jurisdiction and that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable to WAPDA. I have already expressed my opinion on the two points in several cases. Section 17 (1B) has not defined the term civil servant' and has said that all employees, except deputationists, would be deemed to be civil servants. This being so, in order to understand what is meant by civil servant' and who are and who are not civil servants; we have to look into the definition of the term. In every case reference is made on behalf of WAPDA to a judgment of Lahore High Court, which now has been reported in 1983 P L C but I have already in many judg ments, with great respect to my learned brother, differed with it. My considered view is that the definition of the term can never be ignored. If WAPDA Act had defined the term civil servant' and the said definition had been different from the one given in the Civil Servants Act, there could have been some scope to say that irrespective of the definition given in the Civil Servants Act, all WAPDA employees were Civil servants. There is another important reason for which the definition cannot be ignored. According to section 17 (1B) of WAPDA Act, all WAPDA employees have been deemed as civil servants for the purposes of Services Tribunals Act so that the case of WAPDA employees could be heard by the Services Tribu nal. According to Services Tribunals Act, the Tribunal can hear the appeals only of those persons who are civil servants. As the Services Tribunals Act has adopted the definition of civil servant given in the Civil Servants Act, it is, therefore, necessary to consider that definition. The result is that the WAPDA employees who come within the exception given in the definition of civil servant are not those civil servants whose cases can be heard by the Services Tribunal. The respondent being an Assistant Lineman is engaged in the distribution of electricity and thus is covered by the definition of workman given in clause (xix) of Schedule-II of the Workmen's Compensation Act and thus comes within the exceptions of the definition of civil servant. He is, therefore, not a civil servant.

3. Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is applicable since WAPDA is not running by or under the authority of any Government. It is an independent statutory body working under the authority of WAPDA Act. It has its own rules and has its own separate departments. The Government got certain controlling right reserved while getting the WAPDA Act promulgated. If WAPDA had been working by or under the authority of the Government, the latter would have ipso facto full control over it and there would have been no necessity of retaining certain controlling powers. The Central Government knew that WAPDA would be an independent and separate entity and since it wanted to have some control over it, so a provision was made in the Act to that effect. The Efficiency & Disciplinary Rules are also not statutory as they were not duly notified. Section 18 does not authorise WAPDA to make Efficiency & Disciplinary Rules, but it has empowered only to lay down procedure for appointment and service conditions. The two conditions given in proviso-II to section 1 (4) (c) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 do not stand fulfilled and thus WAPDA is not exempted from the applicability of the said Ordinance.

4. Since Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies, the suspension for more than 28 days was hit by Standing Order 15 (5) and was rightly set c aside by the learned lower Court.

5. 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.