WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus JAVAID AHMAD, LINE

JAVID IQBAL, J.--This appeal has been filed by Water and Power Development Authority (hereinafter called "WAPDA") and is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby its writ petition was dismissed.

Briefly the facts are that respondent Javaid Ahmad was appointed as Line Superintendent by the appellant and the said respondent reported for duty on 16 March, 1981. However his services were terminated vide order of the appellant dated 24 March, 1981. Respondent Javaid Ahmad moved a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 and vide order dated 31 May, 1981 the Punjab Labour Court No,1 allowed the said petition and respondent Javaid Ahmad was reinstated with back benefits. Thereupon the aforesaid order was challenged in appeal by the present appellant before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore but this appeal was dismissed on 3rd October, 1981. Then the appellant challenged the aforesaid orders by way of writ petition which as stated above was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 10th May, 1982. Leave to appeal was granted in this case to consider as to whether the High Court was in error in not considering section 17(1-B) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958 as amended uptodate by which the service of the appellant i.e, WAPDA was held to be the service of Pakistan and whereunder the employees were to be considered as civil servants for the purpose of seeking remedy by way of appeal before the Service Tribunal.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant before us that Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958 was amended vide WAPDA (Amendment) Ordinance 1975 whereby a new subsection (1-8) was added to section 17 of the said Act. The new amendment reads as follows

It was argued by learned counsel that since this amendment had been introduced in 1975 it was the governing law at the time of the termination of the service of respondent Javaid Ahmad in 1981. Thus he was deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 and not a worker or workman as defined in the Factories Act, 1923. It was further submitted that a civil servant as defined in section 2 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 was a member of an all Pakistan service or of a civil service of the Federation or who held a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation including any such post connected with defence but did not include a person who was worker or workman. Thus since Javaid Ahmad respondent who was employed as a Line Superintendent in the service of the appellant was a civil servant and not a worker or workman, therefore, he was not subject to the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. On the basis of this reasoning it was argued by learned counsel that the orders passed by the Punjab Labour Court No,1 which were upheld by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore allowing the petition of Javaid Ahmad respondent and dismissing the appeal of the appellant had been passed without jurisdiction and subsequently the judgment passed by the Lahore High Court refusing to interfere with these impugned orders was liable to be set aside. Reliance was placed by learned counsel on 1986 SCMR 18 (WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi etc.). There is force in the arguments of the learned counsel as the point which requires determination in this case has already been decided by this. Court in the authority cited above namely 1986 S CM R 18. Since respondent Javaid Ahmad was to be deemed as civil servant for the purposes of seeking relief against termination of his service, only the Service Tribunal had jurisdiction under section 17(1-B) of the aforesaid Act. Consequently the orders passed by the Punjab Labour Court No,1 and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal were without jurisdiction and the High Court was in error in refusing to interfere with the same in judicial review by not considering that section 17(1-B) of the aforesaid Act was applicable to the present case.

In the light of the above discussion this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Lahore High Court as well as orders passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and Punjab Labour Court No,1 are hereby set aside. But since this appeal has not been defended by Javaid Ahmad respondent and has been heard ex parte, there shall be no order as to costs.