GHULAM SARWAR BHUTTO vs CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SINDH

ORDER

' MAMOON KAZI, J. ---The petitioner was serving with Sindh Road Transport Corporation the respondent in this petition. His services were terminated on 28-8-1998. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal challenging termination of his services on 26-9-1997 and before the same could be disposed of he filed a Constitutional Petition in the High Court of Sindh. The same was, however, dismissed for want of jurisdiction as by virtue of an amendment introduced through Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) (Act XXXI of 1994), service in "Corporation", as defended by the said Act, was to be deemed as civil service. The petitioner's leave petition before this Court against the said order also failed. The petitioner then filed his appeal before the Tribunal on 11-3- 1998. His appeal was, however, dismissed by the Tribunal as time-barred as it was held that the petitioner should have approached the Tribunal within 120 days of filing of his departmental appeal even if the same had not been finally decided and, thus, his appeal before the Tribunal was hopelessly time-barred.

2. It has been noticed by us that the learned Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner has proceeded on an assumption that section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act is applicable in the case of the petitioner. Although, it appears that the procedure, as provided by section 4, was not followed in this case by the petitioner as appeal before the Tribunal was not filed within the period of limitation as provided by the said section, but section 4 is applicable only to civil servants and not to persons who invoke jurisdiction of the Tribunal by virtue of deeming clause inserted in Service Tribunals Act or similar Provincial enactments. The Tribunal appears to have failed to notice that such amendments whereby employees of a Corporation are to be deemed to be civil servant, have been made only in the Service Tribunals Act, both Federal as well as Provincial, but corresponding amendments have not been made in the Civil Servants Act. Therefore, the Legislature appears only to have intended to provide a remedy for redress of grievances to persons serving in corporations owned or controlled by the Federal or a Provincial Governments, but the other terms and conditions applicable to civil servants were not intended to be made applicable to such persons. Consequently, the period of limitation, as provided in section 4, which is applicable only to civil servants, cannot be made applicable to persons who have been declared as such by the said deeming provisions in the Service Tribunals Act as right of a departmental appeal may not be available to them as provided for in case of a civil servant. Reference in this regard may also be made to the case of Lt Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Siddique v. Allama Iqbal Open University Islamabad, Civil Petitions No, 483 of 1998 and 685 of 1998 decided by this Court on 2-11- 1998 wherein under similar circumstances the case was remanded to the Service Tribunal for a fresh decision on the question of limitation.

3. In the result, this petition is converted into an appeal and the case is remanded to the tribunal for giving a fresh decision on the question of limitation, and thereafter, consider the merits of the case, if the first question is decided in favour of the petitioner.