INTEZAR AHMAD Versus FINANCIAL ADVISER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER,PAKISTAN RAILWAYS; LAHORE

DECISION

These are 5 appeals in which common points are involved, and I propose to dispose of them by a composite order. The circumstances in which these appeals have arisen are as under:‑

2.Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid Notification the appellants served grievance notices on the respondents but with no results. They had thereafter filed grievance applications before the Labour Court praying that they be allowed the back benefits of BS‑15 with effect from 1‑4‑1988.

3.The respondents in their Written Statement inter alia contended that their applications did not lie as they were Civil Servants, and as such could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. They also raised the plea of limitation among other grounds. The learned Labour Court after perusing the evidence and hearing the parties dismissed their applications on the ground that the same were not maintainable. Hence these appeals.

4.Coming from the Railways Department, as the appellants do, there is no gainsaying the fact, that they are civil servants within the meaning of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. They could seek exclusion, however, if they could put any construction on their allegations that they are workmen under the Factories Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923. The one under the Factories Act need not tarry us. The definition of "workman" under the Workmen's Compensation Act contained in clause (n) of section 2 of the aforesaid Act is as under:‑

5.The material portion in the aforesaid schedule will be clauses (1) and (12). Clause 1 reads as follows:‑

6.Mr. MA. Hassan learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Cashiers of the Railways had been declared as workmen in some cases, and sought support from Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Abdul Ghani 1983 SCMR 769; Karachi Development Authority v. Nasim Ahmed Khan 1991 PLC 522; General Manager Railways v. Muhammad Jeelani Ashrafi and 2 others 1991 PLC 525; Zia Ahmed Makhdoom v. Pak Suzki Motors 1991 PLC 145; Security Papers Ltd. v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal PLD 1988 Supreme Court 180, and Writ Petition No.210 of 1979 namely Pakistan Railways v. The Punjab Labour Court and others, an attested copy whereof has been produced.

7.The decision of the Supreme Court, as to be found in the Monthly Review pertains to the Port Trust and the other one reported in the PLD dealt with the question, whether a Security Guard was a workman. The other cases .are from this Tribunal. The only one relevant would be 1991 PLC 525, which dealt with the status of a teacher in a Railway School, who was found to be a workman. However, it was clearly mentioned that he could not be said to be permanently posted in the administrative office.

8.On the other hand there is a judgment from this very Tribunal‑Ghulam Hussain v. the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer Pakistan Railways in Appeal No.SUK‑430 of 1988, in which it was held that only persons working in connection with the movement of Railways or in any case associated with the track were workmen, not those working in the Head Quarter office. This Ghulam Hussain was a Sectional Pay Master, as are the appellants. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.578 of 1980 viz. Akbar Ali and others v. They. Senior Administrative Officer, Pakistan Railways, is similarly on all fours with the issue before us. It was held therein that in most of those cases where a different view had been taken, the duties, postings and functions were not examined and it was assumed that they were workmen on the strength of the definition contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act. It was further found that the extended meaning could not be given to what was provided in clause (n) of section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The definition in sub‑clause (1) of section 9 of the Workmen's Compensation was in 2 parts but what is to be found in the opening part is whittled down by the latter part, which excludes those "not permanently employed in any Administrative, District or Sub‑Divisional Office of a Railway". It was further observed that even in clause I of the schedule reference is clearly to those employed "on a Railway in connection with the operation or maintenance of a lift or a vehicle propelled by steam or other mechanical power or by electricity." Clearly the appellants do not fall in that category.

The view taken by the Labour Court under the circumstances is not open to any exception. I will therefore uphold the order and dismiss the appeals.

A.A./2026/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals dismissed.