Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. G A‑171 of 1983, decided on 30th May, 1983.

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3) read with West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1.958), S. 17 (1‑R)‑WAPDA employees‑Civil servants‑Within exclusive jurisdiction of Serviae Tribunal‑Order accepting grievance petition of WAPDA employee by Labour Court, held, without jurisdiction hence set aside by Appellate Tribunal with direction for return of grievance petition for presentation before proper forum.

F. U. Malik v. WA PDA, C. P. No. 163/R of 1982 (unreported) rel.

Abdur Rashid Malik for Appellant.

Mahmood Hussain for Respondent. ,

Date of hearing : 25th May, 1983.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 21st February, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service. The respondent was dismissed from service on the charge of absence without leave.

2. The appeal succeeds on a short ground that the respondent is a civil servant and the Labour Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction. It has been held in F. U. Malik v. WAPDA, C. P. No. 163/R 1982 decided on 5th December, 1982 that all WAPDA employees are civil servants by virtue of section 17 (1‑B) of WAPDA Act. The observations made by the Supreme Court read 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 by the Supreme Court :‑

"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 (I‑B) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, as amended, and that the petitioner was rightly refused the condonation of delay in filing his appeal."

Relying upon the Supreme Court's ruling cited above, I hold that the respondent is a civil servant for the purposes of Service Tribunals Act and the learned lower Court had no jurisdiction. 1, accordingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, direct ‑ the return of the grievance petition to the respondent for presentation to the proper forum.

A. E. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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