Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. R.I.633 of 19'82, decided on 1st October, 1983.
‑‑S. 17 (1‑B)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A 38(3)‑‑Jurisdiction of Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal‑‑Ousted respect of WAPDA employees declared as civil servants.
Bashir Ahmad for Appellant. Mian Iqbal Khalid for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th September, 1983.
The appeal captioned above emanates from the decision, dated 3‑10‑1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for promotion as Junior Engineer, with effect from 20‑3‑1974 and further promotion as Senior Engineer according to his seniority to be fixed from the date of his promotion as Junior Engineer i.e. 20‑3‑1974 was dismissed.
2‑ After the coming into field of Supreme Court's decision, dated 1‑12‑1982 delivered in F.U. Malik v. WAPDA (Civil Petition No. 163‑R of 1982), question arises whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to decide the case and this tribunal to decide the appeal. The Supreme Court has in the above‑cited case, held that all employees working under the Authority are, according to section 17 (1‑B) of WAPDA Act, civil servants for the purposes of Service Tribunals Act, 1973. According section 4 of Service Tribunals Act, when the question of promotion of a civil servant has been considered the Service Tribunal has no jurisdiction. According, to the ruling of the Supreme Court, the appellant, 'lot being a deputation, is a civil servant, No such order has been brought on the record by any of the parties which may show that the case of the appellant was considered for promotion. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been ignored. In no order it was written that his case had been considered, It has been further argued that in reality on account of the dismissal of the petition of the appellant by the N . I . R . C . for promotion, the appellant is not being promoted. Since no such order has been passed by the competent authority for refusing to promote the appellant, it cannot be said that his case for promotion was ever considered. In para. No. 12 of the grievance petition, the appellant has clearly said that his case for promotion' as Junior Engineer has not been considered and decided because his case of suspension was pending which has been now decided. It is thus clear that as yet the case of the appellant has not been considered. So, direction is yet to be given by the competent forum to the competent authority to consider the case of the appellant. The competent authority, according to section 17(1‑B) of WAPDA Act, the Service Tribunal and not the Labour Courts. The Labour Court and this Tribunal, therefore, lack jurisdiction under section 17(1‑B) of WAPDA Act.
3. AR a result of what has been observed, it is directed that the memorandum of appeal be returned to the appellant for presentation to the proper forum.
Appeal returned.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer