MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN LTD. Through Usman Shah Afridi
The respondents, former WAPDA employees transferred on deputation to the petitioner company, filed an application before the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, seeking deputation allowance. The Authority asserted jurisdiction, and the High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging this jurisdiction. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the respondents are civil servants based on the precedent in WAPDA v. Saeed Ahmed Butt (1987 SCMR 298). Consequently, the petitioner argued that the Authority lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate matters concerning terms and conditions of service, including deputation allowance. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the respondents qualify as civil servants and whether the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, possesses the jurisdiction to grant the relief of deputation allowance to such employees. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the claimed amount, which is to be invested pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
- Are employees transferred on deputation from WAPDA to a company considered civil servants?
- Does the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for deputation allowance by employees who are civil servants?
- Payment of Wages Act 1936
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: --The respondents Nos. 1 to 21 filed an application in the Court of the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act at Hyderabad claiming the relief of deputation allowance from the petitioner company. The case of the respondents was that they were in the service of WAPDA. They were transferred on deputation to the petitioner company on 1-9-1974. They claimed the deputation allowance. The petitioner contested the case. The Authority decided the question of jurisdiction in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 to 21 holding that the Authority had the jurisdiction. The petitioner filed a constitution petition before the High Court which was dismissed on 22-11-1989. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are civil servants in view of the judgment of this Court reported in WAPDA v. Saeed Ahmed Butt 1987 SCMR 298.
Therefore, the Authority did not have the jurisdiction to grant any relief as the deputation allowance is also one of the terms and conditions of service. The learned counsel further contended that the learned single Judge of the High Court has taken a different view in other matter involving the same point. The point of law that arises for determination is "whether the respondents Nos. 1 to 21 are civil servants and the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act have no jurisdiction to grant relief of deputation allowance to the respondents".
Leave is granted. Security Rs.5,000
3. The petitioner would deposit the amount claimed by the respondents in this Court within one month. The amount so deposited would be invested in the Khas Deposit.
The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents if they so desire.