Find a Lawyer

Case No. 60 of 1983, decided on 26th February, 1985.

‑‑S. 15‑West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S. 17 (1‑A) and (1‑B)‑WAPDA Employees Civil Servants for purpose of Service Tribunal‑Not within jurisdic tion of Authority.

1983 S C M R 663 and 1983 P L C 895 rel.

S. Yawar Hussain for Applicant.

A. Hameed Khan for Respondent.

The instant application is purported to have been filed under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, whereby the applicant has stated that he is a permanent employee of the Water and Power Develop ment Authority (WAPDA) Lahore, working as Heavy Vehicle Driver in First G.C. S. Division WAPDA, Hyderabad getting Rs. 377 P. M. and residing at Hyderabad, that address of the applicant is Bungalow No. A/79, Unit No. 4. Latifabad, Hyderabad, that wages of the applicant have been deducted for the period from 8th May, 1982 to 20th November, 1982 (under suspension) or a sum equal to Rs. 1,195.86 for which the respondent is responsible to pay the deducted wages under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act and so also the applicant has been re‑instated without any punishment and as such the applicant is entitled to the follow ing wages/amounts :‑

and as such the total claim amount has been assessed to the tune of Rs. 2,284.50 plus compensation at ten times of the claim amount.

The respondent in its Written Objections has stated that the applicant was involved in an accident case which was still pending in the com petent Court of law and in this case the applicant has caused the death of two WAPDA employees and so also completely damaged the vehicle of the respondent. It has been asserted that the applicant was placed under suspension vide letter, dated 10th May, 1982 as the applicant was detained in the lock up and suspended from 8th May, 1982 to 20th November, 1982 and the applicant was reinstated conditionally without prejudice to the respondent and as per decision of that accident case by the competent court of law. 50% pay and other allowances of the applicant could be awarded to the applicant for that suspension period as soon as the trial ends, and as such applicant was not entitled for the same. It is also stated that applicant was also liable to pay the repair charges of the damaged WAPDA vehicle. The respondent has, however, admitted the applicant to be a permanent employee of WAPDA with Rs. 377 as his monthly wages. On legal side, the respondent has submitted that the application was not maintainable in law, that the application was not properly presented and that applicant has not worked from 8th May, 1982 to 20th November, 1982 and hence not entitled to the wages for the said period. It has been prayed that the instant application be dismissed with costs.

The applicant has examined himself as his own witness and he has been cross‑examined by Mr. Abdul Hameed Khan,. learned counsel for the defence. The respondent has not examined anybody.

In the evidence of the applicant, it has come on record that the services of the applicant were terminated by the respondent on 12th June, 1983 and that applicant filed an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for his reinstatement before the learned VIth Sind Labour Court, Hyderabad, but the same was dismissed on legal grounds vide order dated 4th December, 1984. Photostat copy of the said order has also been placed on record of this case also.

The learned counsel for the respondent, at the very outset has urged that because the applicant was a workman within the provisions of section 17 (1‑A) and (I‑B) ibid of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, this Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the instant application as the said jurisdiction and authority vested exclusively with the Service Tribunal.

The grievance application of the present applicant (being application No. 102 of 1983) was dismissed on the ground that the applicant was a civil servant' and the definition of civil servant as contemplated under the WAPDA Act was independent of any definition as con tained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, or Factories Act. I am in respectful agreement with the observations made by the learned VIth Sind Labour Court, Hyderabad Sind whereby reliance is placed on two authorities reported in 1983 S C M R 663 and 1983 PLC 895.

In view of the above discussions, I refuse to entertain the present application for want of jurisdiction of this Authority, as the sole jurisdic tion vested with the Service Tribunal. The instant application, therefore, hereby stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

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.