Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 10(K) of 1984, decided on 14th June, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission Ordinance (XX of 1981), S. 7(2)‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑Employees of a Corporation are not civil servants and not amenable to jurisdiction of Tribunal‑‑Corporation being a body corporate, having perpetual succession and a common seal with power, subject to provisions of Ordinance, to acquire and hold property, both movable and immovable, can sue and be sued in its own name‑‑Such Corporation has no semblance with Federal Government as far as rights of its employees were concerned Employees of Corporation, held, were serving in affairs of Corporation and not in connection with Affairs of Federal Government.

Salahuddin v . Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery P L D 1975 SC 244 ref.

Muhammad Nawaz Shaikh v . Secretary, Ministry of Communications and 2 others 1985 P L C (C.S.) 395 rel.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission Ordinance (XX of 1981), S. 7(2)‑‑Removal from service‑‑Appellant at time of removal from service ceased to be civil servant‑‑Tribunal held, had no jurisdiction to entertain appeal of dismissed civil servant.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission Ordinance (XX of 1981), S. 7(2)‑‑Civil services‑‑Facts that rules for carrying out purposes of Ordinance establishing a statutory Corporation were to be framed by Federal Government and Members thereof, appointed by President, held, would not make its employees as persons serving in connection with Affairs of Federation and as such civil servants.

Latif Saghir for Appellant.

Syed Mahmoodul Hassan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 14th June, 1986.

‑‑The appellant, while employed as High Skilled Mechanic‑II in the Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SUPARCO), was removed from service by order, dated 29th September, 1983. Having failed to get redress departmentally, he has come up in appeal before us invoking the provisions of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973).

2. This Full Bench was constituted to consider a preliminary objection of jurisdiction raised by the respondent in this appeal. The respondent's case is that the appellant not being a civil servant as defined in the Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), cannot seek the redress of his grievance from this Tribunal.

3. It is not denied that only those persons who are civil servants within the meaning of Service Tribunals Act can invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal with regard to settlement of disputes relating to their terms and conditions of service. The learned counsel for respondent, however, has argued that SUPARCO being a body corporate, its employees are not subject to the laws relating to civil servants and that the terms and conditions of their service are regulated by the SUPARCO itself, which is an independent statutory organisation.

4. On behalf of the appellant, it was argued that no doubt SUPARCO is a body corporate, under section 7 (2) of Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission Ordinance (XX of 1981), nevertheless, since its employees are serving in connection with the affairs of the Federation, they are civil servants and as such can invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Reference was made in this respect to the case of Salahuddin v. Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery P L D 1975 S C 244, wherein it was held that when a body corporate is entrusted with the functions of the State involving some exercise of sovereign or public power and where control of the organisation vests substantially in the hands of the Government and where the bulk of the funds are provided by the State, such a body politic or a body corporate can be regarded as a person performing functions of the Federation. The learned counsel for the appellant took us through various provisions of the Ordinance and wanted to impress upon us that SUPARCO is, in fact, an organisation substantially controlled and financially supported by the Federal Government. As such it was argued, that the persons serving ir: connection with the affairs of the SUPARCO are to be treated as persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Federation, and as such are amenable to our jurisdiction. There is a basic misunderstanding of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. It may not be ignored that appeal before the Supreme Court in that case was from an order under Article 201 of 1972 Constitution corresponding tc Article 199(2) of 1973 Constitution, and the question was whether a writ could be issued against a body corporate or not. It was in this context that the Supreme Court held that where a corporation is performing sovereign functions and is administratively and financially controlled by the Government; a writ can be issued as the corporation is a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Government. It was never held in that case that the employees of the corporation are persons in the service of Pakistan or for that matter are civil servants as defined in the Service Tribunals Act. A Full Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Muhammad Nawaz Shaikh v. Secretary, Ministry of Communications and 2 others 1985 P L C (C S) 395, has laid down in clear terms that the employees of a corporation are not civil servants amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. SUPARCO is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power, subject to the provisions of the Ordinance, to acquire and hold property, both movable and immovable, and it can sue and can be sued in its name. This being the case, it has no semblance with the Federal Government. as far as the rights of its employees are concerned. The employees of SUPARCO are serving in connection with the affairs of the SUPARCO and not in connection with the affairs of the Federal Government. The facts that the rules for carrying out the purposes of Ordinance establishing the SUPARCO are to be framed by the Federal Government and that its Members are appointed by the President, would not in any way make its employees as persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Federation and as such civil servants.

5. For the reasons stated above, we are firmly of the view that the appellant at the time of his removal was not a civil servant within the meaning of definition given in the Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), and as such, we have no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, which is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

M.Y.H.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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