Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 12 of 1984 decide on 24^th May 1984.

‑‑‑S.17(1‑B)‑‑Sind Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), S.4‑‑WAPDA employee‑‑Civil servant‑‑Jurisdiction of Labour Court‑‑WAPDA employees having been declared civil servants for purposes of Service Tribunals Act, jurisdiction of Labour Court in respect of such employee, held, ousted.

1983 P L C 895 ref.

‑‑‑S.17(1‑B)‑‑Employee of Provincial Government‑‑Deputation to WAPDA‑‑Application of provisions of Act, 1958 not applicable, while on deputation with WAPDA.

1984 P L C 30 ref.

‑‑‑S.15‑‑Wages, payment of ‑‑Authority found dealing with case of parties by discussing evidence on record and order passed by it found based on cogent reasons‑‑Order of authority allowing claim to respondent, maintained.

Abdul Hameed Khan for Appellant.

M. Bashir Awan for Respondent. .

This appeal under section 17 of Payment of Wages Act has been filed against the order dated 22‑2‑1984, passed by the learned Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Hyderabad whereby the application of the applicant under section 15 of Payment of Wages Act has been allowed and he has been granted his claim amounting to Rs.1,70,525.

The brief facts of the case are that the respondent who was holding the appointment of Line Superintendent Grade I was required to perform the duties of S.D.O. for the period from 4‑3‑1966 to 5‑6‑1978, but was not allowed the salary attached to the said post of S.D.O. He has been agitating the claim with the appellant but of no use. Ultimately he filed the application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, before the learned Authority who has allowed the same and the appellant/ opponent were directed to pay the claim of the respondent /applicant with compensation. Hence this appeal.

I have heard Mr. Abdul Hameed Khan learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. M. Bashir Awan, learned counsel for the respondent.

Mr. Abdul Hameed Khan learned counsel for the appellant has attacked the order of the learned Authority on the grounds:‑

(1) that the order passed by the learned Authority is without juris diction because the respondent /applicant was a civil servant.

(2) that the claim of the respondent /applicant was hopelessly time -barred, hence the Authority was wrongly entertained and allowed the same,

Enlarging his arguments he referred me to section 17(B‑1) of WAPDA Act 1958, according to which the service under Authority (WAPDA) has been declared to be service of Pakistan, and its employees have been declared to be Civil Servant for the purpose of Service Tribunal Act. He cited 1983 P L C 895, in support of his contention. In this case‑law the Lahore High Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in respect of WAPDA servant is ousted.

On the point of limitation he submitted that the claim upto 1978 filed by the respondent /applicant in May 1982, is time‑barred and the learned Authority should not have entertained the same.

Mr. Bashir Awan the learned Advocate for the respondent referred me to the written statement filed by the appellant /opponent in the lower Court and contended that none of the points of civil servant, limitation, maintainability or jurisdiction has been raised by the appellant before the learned Authority and therefore the same could not be challenged at the appellate stage.

He further invited my attention towards para. 1 of the application which shows that the respondent /applicant was not en employee of the WAPDA but was on deputation to WAPDA from the Provincial Government. This assertion was not denied by the appellant /opponent in the written statement, therefore, the respondent was not amenable to the provisions of WAPDA Act, 1958. He referred me to the provisions of section 17(1‑B) of Act according to which the deputationists are exempt from B the applicability of the WAPDA Act.

Mr. Awan cited 1984 P L C 363 which is a decision of Lahore High Court wherein it has been held that deputationists to WAPDA are not amenable to the provisions of WAPDA Act. He further referred me to section 2(b) of Civil Servant Act, 1973, according to which the person falling within the definition of workman under Factories Act and Workmens Compensation Act are excluded from the pale of Civil Servant Act. In view of the nature of duties and assignments of the respondent/ applicant he is a workman within the meaning of Workmen's Compensation Act, therefore, he is excluded from the purview of Civil Servant Act. Therefore the case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable in the instant case.

On the point of limitation Mr. Awan referred me to Exh.A/3, of the lower Court record which is a letter sent by the appellant on 8‑12‑1979 to the respondent and this shows that the respondent was agitating his claim with the appellant, the last letter written on 8‑12‑1979 and the application having been filed in May 1982 is therefore well within prescribed time of three years.

Moreover Mr. Awan referred me to the second proviso of section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act according to which the learned Authority is competent to condone the delay in filing the application and discretion exercised by the learned lower Court is not made appeal-able under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. Subsection (2) of section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act shows that appeal lies against the directions of the Authority issued under subsections (3) 1 (4) of section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act only.

On merits the learned Authority has properly dealt with the case of the parties by discussing the evidence on record. I have gone through the contents of impugned order and find that it is based on cogent reasons. I find no fault with‑its findings and as such they are hereby maintained and in the result the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.

M. Y. M.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.