Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. GA‑383 of 1982jPunjab, decided on 13th August, 1983.

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 read with West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S. 17 (1‑B)‑Redress of grievance‑Jurisdiction of Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal‑WAPDA employee (Clerk Revenue Office)‑A Civil Servant for purposes of Service Tribunals Act, 1973‑Not within jurisdiction of Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal.

F. U. Malik v. WAPDA C. P. L. A. No. 163/11 of 1982 rel,

Appellant in person.

Kamran Mahmood for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 10th August, 1983.

The appeal captioned above emerges from decision dated 31st May, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gajranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re -instatement in service wag dismissed.

2. The Labour Courts and this tribunal have no jurisdiction to grant relief to the employees of WAPDA because according to section 17 (I‑B) of WAPDA Act, all WAPDA employees, except deputationists with WAPDA, are Civil Servants for the purpose of Services Tribunals Act, The appellant is not a deputationists with WAPDA from any Provincial or Central Government. The Supreme Court has in 'F. U. Malik v. WAPDA' (Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 163/11 of 1982 decided on 5th December, 1982) held that all WAPDA employees are civil servants. The observations made by the Supreme Court reads 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' as relevant clause of the aforesaid Act, as amended, reads as under:‑

It has been further observed :‑

"We agree with the finding of the learned Services Tribunal that the petitioner holding very responsible post of Senior Budget and 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."

Following the above quoted ruling I have no alternative but to hold that the Labour Courts and this Tribunal have no jurisdiction.

3. As a result of the observations made above, the memo. of appeal is directed to be returned to the appellant for presentation to the proper forum.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.