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. LHR-124 of 1985, decided on Ist October, 1985.
---Ss. 25-A 38(3)--Jurisdiction of Labour Court--Petitioner claiming retirement benefits admissible to Government servants on grounds that prior to transfer to Road Transport Board had initially joined service in Lahore Omnibus Service under Government--Labour Court dismissing grievance petition holding that petitioner sought declaration that he was a civil servant and as such could seek remedy before Service Tribunal as such declaration was beyond jurisdiction of Labour Court- Labour Court, in circumstances, held, misunderstood case because petitioner claimed that he retained status of Government servant and not that of a civil servant--Case, was, within jurisdiction of Labour Court--Order of Labour Court set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for decision afresh after opportunity of 'evidence to parties regarding terms and conditions of transfer of petitioner to P.R.T.B.
Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Appellant. Muhammad Saleem Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th September, 1985.
The decision, dated 13-12-1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for recovery of retirement benefits was dismissed.
2. The case of the appellant before the learned lower Court was that since initially he was appointed in Lahore Omni Bus Service, he was entitled to retirement benefits allowed to Government servants. In the concluding paragraph the learned lower Court has held that since the appellant was seeking direction that he was a civil servant, his remedy was in the Service Tribunal. It has also been held that a Labour Court being of limited jurisdiction cannot grant a declaration like the one sought for. The learned lower Court has not understood the case. The appellant does not want a declaration that he is a civil servant. His case is that since he was originally taken in service in the Lahore Omni Bus Service which was under the Government, he retained his status as Government servant on being transferred to P.R.T.B. and 'thus is entitled to those retirement benefits that are allowed to Government servants. A civil servant is different from a Government servant. Every Government servant is not a civil servant, whereas every civil servant is a Government servant. The learned lower. Court did not allow any opportunity to the parties to produce evidence. This is not known on what terms the appellant's services were kept at the disposal of P. R. T.B. such as whether he was sent on deputation or once for all his services were transferred and whether the appellant had given his consent if his services have been transferred. If opportunity of production of evidence had been afforded, the appellant may have produced evidence to establish if he was entitled to the retirement benefits allowed to the Government servants.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded with the direction that it should be decided on merits and other legal objections, if any, after affording proper opportunity to the parties to produce evidence. Since the appellant does not seek any declaration, nor there is any material to show that he is a civil servant, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is not barred.
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