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.
Case No. 364 of 1985, decided on 14th November, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 14 a 16‑‑Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), Ss.42 a 44‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), Ss.2 & 4‑‑Market Committee‑‑Corporate body‑‑Employee of Market Committee neither member of Local Council Service nor a civil servant‑‑Cannot invoke jurisdiction of Service Tribunal.
Ras Tariq Chaudhy for Appellant.
Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.
.‑‑Majid Ahmad‑ Naib‑Qasid, Market Committee Baddomalhi has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein, he has impleaded the Chairman, Market Committee, Baddomalhi, District Sialkot, the Director of Agriculture (Economics and Marketing) Punjab, Lahore 'and the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the orders, dated 26‑2‑1984 of respondent No. 1, dated 4‑7‑1984 of respondent No.2 and dated 16‑5‑1985 of respondent No.3, be set aside and the appellant be re‑instated in service.
3. The case is still at the stage of preliminary hearing. However, the reports from the respondents were called for before adjudication of this case. A detailed report from the Administrator, Market Committee, Baddomalhi was received and copy of the same was supplied to the appellant's counsel. The assistance of the learned District Attorney was sought to adjudicate this case as the matter involved was regarding the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to hear this case via‑a‑via the status of the appellant.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued on the point of jurisdiction and has submitted that the appellant is a civil servant and the Punjab Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this appeal of the appellant. He has pointed out that the appellant is a member of Local Council Service, though employed by the Market Committee, and being the member of the Local Council Service he is a civil servant and as such he is deemed to be a civil servant for the purpose of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
5. The above contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has been rebutted by the Market Committee, Baddomalhi by submitting that the appellant is an employee of the Market 'Committee. He was appointed by the Market Committee under section 16 of the Punjab Agriculture Produce and Markets Ordinance, 1978. According to this Rule, the Market Committee is the competent authority to appoint its servants, to prescribe their terms and conditions of service and to take directly action against them. The Market Committee is a Corporate A Body as per section 14 of the above Ordinance and employees of the committee are not a civil servant as defined in section 2 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
6. The learned District Attorney assisting this Court on the above issue, has submitted that the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant belonged to the Local Council Service, is not correct and is misleading as the appellant is not covered under sections 42 and 44 of the Punjab Local Council Government Ordinance, 1979. Furthermore the appellant is not a civil servant as defined under section 2 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, as the appellant was not a member of the civil service of the Province or he held a post in connection with the affairs of the Province. He was an employee of a corporate body and was paid from the funds of the Market Committee and was not paid from the Government Funds of the Punjab Province. Thus, the appellant is not civil servant as defined in section 2 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record. We are of the considered opinion that the appellant is not a civil servant as defined in section 2 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 as well as section 2 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and we have no jurisdiction to entertain In this appeal.
8. The result of the above discussion of the case is that the appeal is dismissed, in limine.
A. E.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer