Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

MUHAMMAD ASLAM DHUDDI versus THE CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, WAPDA, QUETTA CANTT.


Article 25A & 38 (3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 were read with the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXI of 1958), Labor Dept of Labor Department working under Section 17 (1B) WAPDA. There is no civil servant in the jurisdiction of. There is no evidence on record that the Labor Court dismissed the applicant's claim of being a civil servant and seeking jurisdiction whether the applicant was a Labor Court deposition order or, in the circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal separately Kept and remanded for judgment again after the opportunity for proof of case. The two sides
1984 P L C 915

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]

Present : Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

MUHAMMAD ASLAM DHUDDI

versus

THE CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, WAPDA, QUETTA CANTT.

Appeal No. GA‑235 of 1983, decided on 13th August, 1983.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3) read with West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S. 17 (1‑B) ‑ Deputa tionist of Electricity Department working under WAPDA ‑ Not a Civil Servant‑Within jurisdiction of Labour Court‑Labour Court dismissing grievance petition treating petitioner as civil servant and for want of jurisdiction ‑ No evidence on record whether petitioner was or not a deputationist‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for re-deciding after opportunity of evidence to both parties.

Mian Mahmood Hussain for Appellant.

M. A. Rashid for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 9th August, 1983.

JUDGMENT

This appeal arises from the decision dated 13th April, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, where by the grievance petition of the appellant was . dismissed on the ground that he was a civil servant and the Court had no jurisdiction.

2. The appellant was employed in the electricity department on 22nd Tune, 1948 and on the formation of WAPDA was transferred there. The parties failed to produce evidence on the point as to on what conditions the appellant was sent to WAPDA. If his services were transferred with out retaining lien, he would be WAPDA's employee and not a deputa tionist and if his lien was retained and was sent on deputation, he would not be a civil servant as section 17 (1‑B) excludes the deputationists from the pale of civil servant. Both the learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the case may be remanded, so that they could produce relevant evidence for the decision of the point. 1, accordingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned order of the learned lower Court, remand the case with the direction that after affording proper opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on the point of civil servant, the case be re-decided.

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.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
family advocate from Sidhnoti lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.