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. LHR‑167 of 1983, decided on 19th March, 1984.
‑‑ Res judicata‑Law of res judicata not applicable but principles applicable to proceedings before Labour Court‑Petitioner whether a civil servant and not a workman hence not within jurisdiction of Labour Court ‑ Point not raised in previous grievance petition Point being of jurisdiction could be raised in subsequent grievance petition‑Had same been raised and decided in previous grievance petition same could not have been re-agitated‑View that since such point not raised in previous petition decision in previous petition was res judicata, in circumstances, repelled‑ Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 36.
‑‑ S. 3 (4) read with Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S. 2 (b) (iii)‑Railway. employee‑Clerk in Labour Bureau Electric, Railway Workshops Moghalpura‑Bureau not meant for public carriage of passengers, animals or goods‑Duties not incidental to or connected with manufacturing process nor such process carried on in place of work‑A civil servant and not workman‑Mere fact that working place situated in factory area, held, not enough to oust him from definition of civil servant.
Syed Muhammad Naqi for Appellants.
Sh. Abdul Ghafoor, Representative for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 12th March, 1984.
The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 13th February, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for setting aside the order of stopping of increments for three years was accepted.
2. The allegation for which action was taken against the respondent was that he had received railway pass meant for another railway employee. He was dismissed from service. His grievance petition was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service permitting the appellants to hold fresh enquiry. Increments for three years were stopped after holding fresh enquiry. The learned lower Court has set aside the punishment on the ground that the record of the enquiry was not produced.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued only one point and that is that the respondent being a civil servant, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. The learned lower Court has on this point held that since in the previous grievance petition such a point was not raised, the previous decision is res judicata. I do not agree. This is a point of jurisdiction and thus was right raised before the learned lower Court. Law of res judicata does not apply and only principles are applicable. If the point had been raised and decided against the appellants, of course, it could not have been re-agitated.
4. There are three exceptions of section 2 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 (Central). Work charged workers and those who come within the definition of workman contained in section 2 (h) of the Factories Act and section 2 (n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act are not civil servants. The respondent is not a work‑charged employee. So far as section 2 (h) of the Factories Act is concerned, his work is neither incidental to not connected with any manufacturing process. He is working in Labour Bureau Electric as U. D. C. There is no evidence that his duties are incidental to or connected with the subject of manufacturing process. The mere fact that his working place is situated in the factory area is not enough. He is employed in clerical capacity being U. D. C. and in the place where he works no manufacturing process is carried on. So far as Workmen's Compensation Act is concerned, section 2 (n) says that any person who is a railway servant as defined by section 3 of the Railways Ac is a workman. The said section reads as under :‑
"means any person employed by Railway Administration in connection with the service of Railway."
Railway is defined in section 3 (4) thus "Railway means any railway or any portion of a railway for the public carriage of passengers, animals or goods." Labour Bureau Electric cannot be said to be a railway as it is not meant for public carriage of passengers, animals or goods. So, the respondent is a civil servant.
5. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed.
A. E. Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer