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.
Writ Petition No.5124 of 1983, heard on 7th May, 1984.
‑‑‑S.30‑‑Commissioner Workmen's Compensation granting relief to civil servant‑‑Order of Commissioner challenged in writ jurisdiction before High Court on ground of jurisdiction‑‑Held: Commissioner Workmen's Compensation has no jurisdiction to consider cases in which dispute is about terms and conditions of civil servant‑‑Order without lawful authority and of no legal effect‑‑Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art.9.
Syed Kamal Mufti for Petitioner.
Faiz Muhammad Sadiq for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 7th May, 1984.
The petitioner challenges the order, dated 3rd November, 1983, passed by respondent No.2 whereby a direction was issued to deposit a sum of Rs.23,868 within a period of 30 days for onward payment to respondent No.1. It is contended on behalf of WAPDA that respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction in the matter as respondent No.1 is a civil servant and, therefore, any dispute about his terms and conditions could have been taken up in appeal before the Service Tribunal only.
2. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that as the petitioner had agreed to make payment to the respondent for the period he remained under suspension the prayer is unequitable and should not go through.
3. The learned counsel is not in a position to show from the record that the amount as calculated was due to his client. On the other hand, respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction in law to consider a case in which the dispute is about the terms‑and conditions of a civil servant. In this view of the matter even on equitable grounds I cannot refuse relief, as neither is the admission of the petitioner there nor are there correct calculations of the dues. The impugned order is, therefore, declared to be without lawful authority and of not legal effect. This order, however, shall not stand in the way of the respondent No.1 to seek recourse to a competent authority. The parties shall bear their own costs.
M.I.
Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer