1981 PLP 75 (PLC)

(1) Member (Power) (A) All officers in the Power Wing in National Pay Scale Nos. 18 and 19. (B) All officers in National Pay Scale Nos. 16 and 17 serving under Chief Accountant (Power) and Director, Finance (Power). (2) Member (Water) (A) All officers of Water Wing in National Pay Scale Nos. 18 and 19. (B) All officers in National Pay Scale Nos. 16 and 17 serving in the Budget and Finance Division of the Water Wing. (3) Member (Finance) All officers in National Pay Scale Nos. 18 and 19 serving in Common Services including officers in National Pay Scale Nos. 16 and 17 serving in the Authority's Secretariat and other offices under his administrative control. (4) Chief Engineers and Deputy All officers/officials in National Pay Chief Engineers /Project Scale Nos. 1 to 17 serving under Directors of the rank of their administrative control including Deputy Chief Engineers and staff in National Pay Scale Nos. 1 above. to 11 employed and serving in their offices. (5) Superintending Engineers. All officials in National Pay Scale Nos. 1 to 11 serving under their administrative control. (6) Chief Accountant (WAPDA) All officials in National Pay Scale Nos. I to 15 serving under their respective administrative control. (7) Secretary (8) Director‑General, Budget, Finance and Coordination (9) Director, Budget and Finance (Water). (10) Director, Finance (Power) (11) Director, Public Relations (12) Legal Advisor (13) Director, C & I (14) Director, Computer Centre

All officials in National Pay Scale Nos. 1 to 15 serving under their respective administrative control. It is an admitted fact that in the above annexure the Executive Engineers are not included. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed a copy of another Office Order No. S/SO (E‑I)I(1069‑B)Admn/3185‑33857 dated 22‑1‑1976, which shows that the Authority had withdrawn with immediate effect the powers delegated by it to the Members and officers of the Authority vide Office Order No. S/SO(E‑I)1(1069‑B)Admn/44735‑855 dated 31‑10‑1975 reproduced above. This office order dated 22‑1‑1976 is also reproduced below :‑ "The Authority has decided to withdraw, with immediate effect, the powers delegated by it to Members and officers of the Authority vide Office Order No. S/SO (E‑I) I (1069‑B) Admn/44735‑855 dated October 31, 1975." The respondent‑Authority hag not placed any material on the record to show that the Authority had delegated its powers under section 17 (1‑A) of the Act in favour of any officer, especially the Executive Engineers. Mr. Kamal Mufti, learned counsel for the respondent‑Authority, sought several adjournments in order to ascertain from the appropriate officers whether the powers of the Authority under section 17 (1‑A) have been delegated to the Executive Engineers or other officers or not, but he frankly confessed before me that he was not able to produce any such order before this Tribunal showing that the Executive Engineer was in fact delegated the said powers of the Authority under section 17 (1‑A). It is not denied that the onus was upon the respondent‑Authority to establish that such power was in fact delegated in favour of the Executive Engineers. In the absence of any positive document, the Labour Court was not justified to deem or presume that such delegation order was passed in favour of the Executive Engineer, who passed the impugned termination order. The result is that at present powers under section 17 (1‑A) can only be exercised by the Authority and not by any other officer of the Authority as its delegatee, because the respondent‑Authority has failed to place any documentary proof on the record showing such delegation of powers under section 17 (1‑A) of the WAPDA Act. Moreover, in the instant case the impugned termination order has been passed by the Executive Engineer under clause (2) of the appointment letter of the appellant. The Labour Court, therefore, was factually wrong to observe that the impugned termination order was deemed to have been passed under section 17 (1‑A) of the Act. As mentioned above, it is only the Authority, which is given power under section 17 (I‑A) and the same has not so far been delegated in favour of any other officers of the Authority. Therefore, the impugned termination order could not in any manner be deemed to have been passed under section 17 (1‑A), as the Executive Engineer had no authority to exercise power under section 17 (1‑A). Since the termination order was passed' under the appointment letter, the Labour Court was fully competent to examine the validity of the same.

5. In view of the above, this appeal is accepted, the impugned decision of the Labour Court is set aside and the case is remanded back to it for decision afresh in accordance with law. Appeal accepted. Case remanded.