1976 PLC(CS) 79

PROJECT MANAGER, MANGLA DAM (WAPDA) Versus FAKHAR ZAMAN HAIDER AND 2 OTHERS

Citation1976 PLC(CS) 79

CourtAzad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal

Case No.Service Appeals Nos. 25 and 26 of 1975

Date1976-07-12

Judge(s)Malik Muhammad Aslam Khan, Chairman

ORDER

Since the facts and the law points involved in both the appeals are identical, these appeals are being disposed of by this single order.

2. The respondents, who were Senior Clerks in the Mangla Dam Project, were promoted and later on confirmed as Accounts Assistants in the year, 1964 and 1965. Later on a circular order was issued on 12th August, 1971 to the effect that no senior clerk promoted as Accounts Assistant would be confirmed till he passed the Departmental examination. The respondents challenged this Circular Order as well orders dated 10‑11‑71 and 30‑6‑71 through a declaratory suit in the Court of Sub‑Judge. Mirpur who decreed the suits in favour of the respondents. It is against this background that the present appeals have been lodged.

3. During the preliminary hearing the point that came up for considera tion is as to whether an employee of Mangla Dam Organization located in Azad Kashmir could be deemed a 'Civil Servant' in terms of its definition contained in section 2 (b) of the Azad Jamma & Kashmir Service Tribunal Act, 1975 (hereinafter to be called as the Act). The term 'Civil Servant' has been defined in section 2 (b) of the Act as:

(b) 'Civil Servant' means a Person who is or who has been a member of a civil service of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir in connection with the affairs of the Government or who holds or has held a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Government but does not include‑

(i) a person who is or who has been on deputation to the Azad Jammu & Kasmir from the Federation or any other province of Pakistan or authority;

(ii) a person who is or has been employed on contract or on work -charged basis, or who is or has been paid from contingencies; or

(iii) a person who is or has been a 'worker' or 'workman' as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 (VIII of 1934) as in force in Azad Jammu & Kashmir.

Plain reading of this definition shows that an employee of Mangla Dam Organisation does not fall within the definition of 'Civil Servant'. It is conceded that Mangla Dam Organisation, though located within Azad Kashmir, is wholly and solely an organisation of WAPDA. WAPDA itself is a semi‑autonomous body under the Federation of Pakistan (Ministry for Fuel, Power and Natural Resources). As such, by no stretch of imagination an employee of Mangla Dam Organisation, like the respondents, can be called a 'Civil Servant' as defined in section 2(b) of the Act, merely on the ground that the organisation is located and operating in Azad Kashmir. Because an employee of Mangla Dam Organisation is neither a member of the civil service of Azad Jammu & Kashmir nor holds any post in connection with the affairs of the Government. It may also be stated here that the term 'Government' occurring in section 2(b) of the Act is to be read in terms of its definition given in section 2 (c) which reads as:

"'Government' means the Azad Government of the State of Jummu & Kashmir."

Therefore to bring a person within the definition of 'civil servant' in Azad Kashmir, such a person should be either a past or present member of civil service of Azad Jammu & Kashmir or should hold or should have held a civil post in connection with the affairs of Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir subject to the exceptions contained in section 2 (b) of the Act. It is clear that an Accounts Assistant of the Mangla Dam Organisation is neither a member of the civil service of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir nor holds a post in connection with the affairs of the Azad Government. In view of this legal position I hold that the respondents do not fall within the definition of 'civil servant' in terms of section 2(b) of the Act so as to clothe the appellants with the right to lodge the present appeals before this Tribunal under section 8 of the Act. Before concluding I may as well say that the Service Tribunal is a special Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction regarding matters relating to terms and conditions of service in respect of persons in the service of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. Therefore, unless all matter fulfils the particular conditions necessary for bringing it within the four corners of the Act, the Service Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction even though the matter may touch some of the terms and conditions of service. Because, unlike civil Courts, which under section 9, C. P. C. are Courts of unlimited civil jurisdiction, a statutory Tribunal cannot be presumed to have jurisdiction in respect of all matters of service unless such matters strictly fall within its scope.

As the matter under the present appeals does not fall within the limited scope and jurisdiction of this Tribunal, for reasons stated above, the appeals are hereby dismissed in limine.