EXECUTIVE ENGINECR, ELECTRICITY, WAPDA LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF NAEEM

This revision petition is directed against an interlocutory order passed by the Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore on 22nd of March, 1994, whereby on the application of the respondent operation of the order of his suspension, dated 22nd of March, 1992 was suspended by way of temporary injunction.

2. The respondent was employed with the WAPDA as a Meter Reader in Kot Radha Kishan Sub‑Division. On 17th of March, 1992 he was arrested by the F.IA. The petitioner, therefore, vide his order, dated 22nd of March, 1992 placed him under suspension from the above date. He filed a grievance petition assailing the validity of the suspension order on the ground that it being for an indefinite period, offended against the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Alongwith the grievance petition, he filed an application for a temporary. injunction suspending the operation of the suspension order during the pendency of the grievance petition.

3. The petitioner opposed the grievance petition as well as the application on the ground that the respondent was a civil servant under section 17(1‑B) of the WAPDA Act and, therefore, the Labour Laws were not applicable to him.

4. The learned Labour Court accepted the plea of the respondent and vide its impugned order suspended the operation of the suspension order till the final decision of the grievance petition.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The WAPDA employees have been declared as civil servants by virtue of section 17(1‑B) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 with effect from 30th of September, 1975. Consequently, the Service Tribunal alone has jurisdiction to adjudicate with regard to their terms and conditions. WAPDA and another v. Muhammad Arshad Quraishi (1986 SCMR 18), Government of Balochistan and others v. Shabir Ahmad and another (1990 SCMR 1233) and an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Waris Amin v. Federation of Pakistan and others (Civil Appeals Nos.148, 160 and 161 of 1990), decided on 15th of July, 1991 support this view.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that since the order of suspension is not final, the Labour Court only has jurisdiction in the matter. I am afraid, this contention is misconceived. Labour Courts do not possess general jurisdiction as is conferred on Civil Courts by section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. For the foregoing reasons, the Labour Court was not competent to pass the impugned order. Therefore, this revision is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the application of the, respondent for the grant of temporary injunction is dismissed.

H.B.T./779/Lb.P ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Revision accepted.