1995 PLP 289 (PLC)
CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, ISLAMABAD Versus DOST MUHAMMAD, LINE SUPERINTENDENT‑I, WAPDA, RAWALPINDI
| Citation | 1995 PLP 289 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sh. Abdul Waheed Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, ISLAMABAD Versus DOST MUHAMMAD, LINE SUPERINTENDENT‑I, WAPDA, RAWALPINDI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 289 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 289 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sh. Abdul Waheed Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 289 (PLC) (CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, ISLAMABAD Versus DOST MUHAMMAD, LINE SUPERINTENDENT‑I, WAPDA, RAWALPINDI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th July, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial dispute ‑‑‑‑WAPDA employee‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Competency‑‑‑Petitioner who was employed with WAPDA as a Line Superintendent Grade‑I had challenged charge‑sheet served on him for misconduct by filing grievance petition before Labour Court ‑‑‑WAPDA employees having been declared as civil servants by virtue of S. 17(1.‑B) of WAPDA Act, 1958, Service Tribunal alone had jurisdiction to adjudicate matter of petitioner and not the Labour Court‑‑ Grievance petition filed by petitioner against his grievance, was dismissed being incompetent. Government of Balochistan and others v. Shabir Ahmad and another 1990 SCMR 1233 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th July, 1994. This is an appeal by the Chairman, Area Electricity Board, WAPDA, Islamabad from the decision of the Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi dated 3rd of April, 1993, whereby the grievance petition filed by the respondent was accepted.
2. The respondent is employed with WAPDA as a Line Superintendent Grade‑I. On 11th of December, 1990 he was served with a charge‑sheet (Exh.P. 1) for misconduct on the allegation that he failed to provide electric connections in Mohallah Dhakan, Village Dhal Kakka, Tehsil Kharian due to undue benefit given' to consumers for ulterior motive. On 8th of May, 1991 he filed a grievance petition assailing the legality of the charge‑sheet. According to him, the charge‑sheet was not only vague but also time‑barred as it pertained to allegation for the year 1984.
3. The appellant contested the grievance petition inter alia raising a legal objection that since the respondent was a: civil servant, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter.
4. After recording evidence, the learned Labour Court held that it had jurisdiction in the matter and that the charge‑sheet was barred by time. 1t, therefore, passed the impugned decision accepting the grievance petition of the respondent and dropping the enquiry proceedings initiated against him. Hence this appeal.
5. The appeal was fixed for arguments on 27th of June, 1994. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. It was, therefore, directed that the appeal would be heard ex parte. Ex parte arguments have been heard today.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that since WAPDA employees have been declared as `civil servants' by virtue of section 17(1‑B) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 with effect from 30th of September, 1975, Service Tribunal alone has jurisdiction to adjudicate with regard to their terms and conditions. He has cited WAPDA and another v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi (1986 SCMR 18), Government of Balochistan and others v. Shabir Ahmad and another (1990 SCMR 1233) and an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Waris Amin v. Federation of Pakistan and others (Civil Appeals Nos.148, 160 and 161 of 1990), decided on 15th of July, 1991 which fully support his contention.
7. In view of the above authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, this appeal is accepted ex parte, the impugned decision is set aside and the grievance petition filed by the respondent is dismissed as being incompetent. H.B.T./778/Lb.P Appeal accepted.