Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Appeal No. RYK‑581 of 1983, decided on 24th January, 1984,
‑‑ S. 25‑A and West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S. 17 (1‑B) read with Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4 ‑‑ WAPDA employees except deputationists‑Civil servants for purposes of Service Tribunals Act, 1973‑Not within jurisdiction of Labour Court‑View that those covered by exceptions of definition of "civil servant" under S. 2(b) of Civil Servants Act, 1973 were not civil servants for this purpose changed.
F. U. Malik v. WAPDA C.P.S.L.A. No. 163/11 of 1982 rel.
Ch. Nazir Hussain for Appellants.
Date of hearing: 21st December, 1983.
The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision, dated 30th November, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur, dismissing grievance petition of the appellants for re‑instatement in service on the ground that they being civil servants, the Court had no jurisdiction.
2. It has been argued that this Tribunal had previously declared the appellants as workmen and not civil servants, so the learned lower Court could not hold against the said decision. The view of this Tribunal previously, no doubt, was that the WAPDA employees are covered by the exceptions of the definition of civil servant given in the Civil Servants Act and were not civil servants but after the ruling given by the Supreme Court in F. U. Malik v. WAPDA (Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 163/11 of 1982) decided on 5th December, 1982 view has been changed and 1 have in many WAPDA cases held that WAPDA employee who are not with WAPDA on deputation are civil servants for the purposes of Services Tribunals Act. The learned lower Court has, therefore, rightly followed the above‑mentioned Supreme Court's ruling. Learned counsel has argued that section 17 of the WAPDA Act has been recently further amended by adding clause (d) to section 17(1), which is to the effect that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 shall not apply to the members of Watch and Ward. Learned counsel says that the exclusion of members of Watch and Ward means that other employees are governed by the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1909. This Court, according to Article 189 of the Constitution of 1973, is bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court, so cannot hold otherwise.
3. As a result, the appeal has no force and is dismissed in limine.
A. E. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer