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. 171(L) of 1986, decided on 19th October, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S.2‑‑Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal, invoking of‑‑Only a person within definition of 'civil servant', held, can invoke jurisdiction of Service Tribunal‑‑Service Tribunal's jurisdiction has been extended only to 'civil servants', and not to all the persons in the service of Pakistan‑‑Employees of statutory corporations and employees of companies established under Companies Ordinance being not civil servants were not amenable to jurisdiction of Service Tribunal‑‑Appeal filed by employee of Corporation dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
K.M.A. Samdani for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 14th October, 1986.
‑‑ The only question which we are required to answer in this appeal, is whether the appellant, as an employee of Ittehad Chemicals Ltd., an establishment to which Economic Reforms Order (P.O. No. I of 1972) applies, can invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal in respect of the terms and conditions of his service.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the cases of Farid Ahmad v. Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works P L D 1983 Kar. 576 and Muhammad Afzal Khan v. Karachi Development Authority P L D 1984 Kar. 114. In both the cases, the question of the status of persons in the employment of a corporation and establishments was discussed. We have, however, in the case of Joseph v. Secretary, Ministry of Communications 1983 P L C (CS) 600 have reached a conclusion different from the one reached by the Karachi High Court, in the case of Farid Ahmad. However, since the learned counsel has also argued the case independently of the decisions of the Karachi High Court, we propose to deal with them in some more details.
3. Under section 4 of the Service' Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), only a person who comes within the definition of 'civil servant' as given in clause (a) of section 2 thereof, read with the definition given in the Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), can invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The learned counsel has argued that the power of adjudicating on matters relating to the civil servants vests in the Tribunal by virtue of the authority not only of the Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), but also and mainly on the strength of Article 212 of the Constitution which confers jurisdiction on the Parliament to establish Tribunals to deal 'exclusively' with matters relating to terms and conditions of persons in the service of Pakistan. It was contended that Article 212 empowers the Parliament to establish Tribunals to deal with matters relating to terms and conditions of service of persons who are or have been in the service of Pakistan., and that once a Tribunal is established, it shall have exclusive jurisdiction and no other Court can make any order. Reliance was placed on the provisions of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978, by which inter alia, all persons in 'Corporation service' as defined therein, were declared to be persons in the service of Pakistan. It was urged that when a person is serving in connection with the affairs of Federation, he shall be deemed to be a person to whom the Service Tribunals Act applies and that making a class of persons as 'civil servants' within the main class of persons in the 'service of Pakistan' would frustrate the provisions of the Constitution itself. The learned counsel contended that every person in the service of Pakistan shall be deemed to be a civil‑servant and once the Tribunal is established, it shall have exclusive jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of all other forums would be ousted by virtue of clause (2) of Article 212, This question was answered by us in the case of Amir Ali v. Chairman. C.D.A. 1980 P L C (CS) 335. In addition to what has been said in that case, we may point out that the jurisdiction of the Courts is ousted by clause (2) ibid only in respect of those persons and matters to which the jurisdiction of the Tribunal extends. The Tribunal's jurisdiction has been extended only to the 'civil servants' and not to all the persons in the service of Pakistan.
4. The appellant before us is an employee of Ittehad Chemicals. He is a person in the service of Pakistan, but since he is not a civil servant, the jurisdiction of this Tribunal cannot be invoked by him. The argument advanced before us that the appellant being an employee of a taken‑over industry shall be deemed to be a person serving in connection with the affairs of Federation is not acceptable, inasmuch as Ittehad Chemicals is not a department of the Government and his employees are not paid from the Federal Consolidated Fund. It has its own means of income and the expenditure is incurred, including the salaries of the employees, from that income. In fact, the appellant is serving in connection with the affairs of Ittehad Chemicals itself, which is an organisation distinct from the Federation. It may be stated that in the case of University of Baluchistan v. Saeed Muhammad Khan 1986 S C M R 1063, the Supreme Court has specifically laid down that employees of statutory corporations (and we include Companies established under the Companies Act) are not civil servants and hence not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
5. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the appellant, not being a 'civil servant', cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. This appeal is, in consequence. dismissed in limine.
A. A ./349/ Lb/S
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer