MAZHAR HUSSAIN Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED
This petition challenged a judgment by the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his removal from service on the grounds that, as a 'workman,' he was not a 'civil servant' and thus lacked standing before the Tribunal. The core legal question was whether employees of corporations or bodies controlled by the Federal Government, who are classified as workmen, fall within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal misconstrued Section 2-A. The Court ruled that Section 2-A creates a legal fiction, conferring the status of 'civil servant' upon all employees of such organizations for the limited purpose of seeking redress before the Service Tribunal, regardless of whether they are classified as workmen or contract employees. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on merits. The key principle established is that Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, overrides the restrictive definitions of 'civil servant' found elsewhere, granting all employees of covered organizations access to the Service Tribunal.
- Does Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 confer the status of 'civil servant' on employees of corporations controlled by the Federal Government for the purpose of invoking the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction?
- Are employees classified as 'workmen' excluded from the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Does the definition of 'civil servant' in Section 2(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 restrict the scope of Section 2-A of the same Act?
- Section 2-A, Service Tribunals Act 1973
- Section 2(1)(b), Service Tribunals Act 1973
ORDER
JAVED IQBAL, J--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2-5-2000 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed and order dated 7-3-1999 whereby petitioner was removed from service has been kept intact.
2. It is mainly contended by Ch. Ghulam Qadir, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 has been misconstrued and misinterpreted which resulted -in serious miscarriage of justice by 'ignoring the fact that the petitioner was 'civil servant' for the purposes of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and could have approached the Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievances.
3. We have examined the contentions as mentioned hereinabove in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have also perused the judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below for ready reference:--
"3. We would not like to discuss the merits/demerits of the cases because a Full Bench of this Tribunal has already held in Nosherwan's case-Appeal No.983(L)/99 decided on 10-2-2000 that a workman employed under any authority, corporation body or organization established by or under a Federal Law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government in which the Federal Government has controlling share or interest shall have recourse to the law applicable to him for redressal of his grievance and shall not be deemed to be a civil servant for the purpose of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and his appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. "
4. The above reproduced extract would show that the appeal of petitioner has b en dismissed on the ground that petitioner being "workman" is not amenable to the jurisdiction of .the Service Tribunal being not a "Civil Servant," We are of the considered view that the provisions as contained in section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 has been misconstrued and misinterpreted by the learned Service Tribunal. All such employees are amenable to the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal being "Civil Servant" which status has been conferred upon them by virtue of section 2-A for the limited purpose i.e. approaching the Service Tribunal for the redressal of their grievance concerning terms and conditions of their service irrespective of the Service Rules and Regulations applicable in their cases. It hardly matters as to whether being a Cashier his services were regulated by the Wage Commission Award or otherwise. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in Muhammad Afzal v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (1999 SCMR 92). It is worth-mentioning that the import of section 2-A has been examined in case Aftab Ahmed v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (1999 SCMR 197), relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below for ready reference:--
"3. As regards that second ground which has been found favour with the Service Tribunal, it may be pertinent to reproduce the aforesaid newsy-enacted section 2-A in the Act, which reads as under:--
'2-A. Service under certain corporations, etc. to be service of Pakistan. ---Service under any authority, corporation, body or organization established by or under Federal Law-or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has a controlling share of interest is hereby declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under such authority, corporation, body or organization shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purpose of this Act.
A perusal of the above-quoted newly-enacted section 2-A indicates that the service under any Authority, Corporation Body or Organization established by or under a Federal Law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has a controlling share of interest has been declared to be service of Pakistan. It has also been provided that every person holding a post under any such Authority, Corporation. Body or Organization shall be deemed to be in civil service for the purpose of this Act i.e. the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. In our view, it is not necessary for an employee working in any of the organizations covered by section 2-A that he should also come within the ambit of definition of the "civil servant" given in section 2(b) of the Act of 1973. The employees of the various Authorities, Corporations etc. mentioned in section 2-A have been treated in the service of Pakistan for limited purpose for providing remedy by way of appeal to them against an order of which they may feel aggrieved.
4. As regards the third ground which found favour with the Service Tribunal in some of the cases, namely, that the petitioners were employed on contract basis or they were workmen excluded by the definition of "civil servants" given in section 2(1)(b) of the Act of 1973, it may be observed that since we have held that the latter definition is not applicable to the employees covered by the newly-enacted section 2-A, as a corollary, it must follow that the exceptions mentioned in clause (b) of subsection(1) of section 2 of the Act of 1973 will not be attracted to the petitioners' cases. "
5. The said view also finds support from the dictum laid down in Zahir Ullah v. Chairman, WAPDA (2000 SCMR 826) which is also reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:--
"The above view taken by the learned Tribunal does not. appear to be correct as section 2-A which was inserted in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, by its own force, created a class of Government servants by fiction, for the, purpose of allowing them to avail remedy of appeal before the learned Service Tribunal. Section 2-A ibid while providing that the service under any authority, corporation, body or organization established by or under a Federal Law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has a controlling share of interest is declared to be the service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under such corporation or organization shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the' purpose of Service Tribunals. Act, 1973 does nor make any differentiation between the employees working in such organization either as regular employees or contract employees or workmen. We are, therefore, of the view that as the appellants were covered by the provisions of section 20-A. for the purposes of availing remedy before the Service Tribunal. The fact that they were employed in the organization/corporation on contract basis, could not disentitle them to the remedy of appeal which became available to them on account of incorporation of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973."
In sequel to the above mentioned discussion the petition is converted into appeal and accepted. The Federal Service Tribunal shall decide the appeal afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned as the controversy squarely falls within its jurisdictional domain.
S.A.K./M-877/S Appeal accepted.