1997 PLP 637 (PLC)
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GHOTKI TUBEWELL DIVISION, GHOTKI Versus ASGHAR KHAN
| Citation | 1997 PLP 637 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GHOTKI TUBEWELL DIVISION, GHOTKI Versus ASGHAR KHAN |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 637 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 637 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 637 (PLC) (THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GHOTKI TUBEWELL DIVISION, GHOTKI Versus ASGHAR KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shabbir Awan for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Shabbir Awan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th September, 1996. DECISION This appeal by the Executive Engineer, Ghotki is directed against the decision of the Sindh Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur allowing grievance petition of one Asghar Khan Chowkidar against cancellation of his appointment on the recommendation of the Mukhtarkar in the interest of Government work. The learned Labour Court accepted the grievance petition and ordered Chowkidar to be reinstated in service though without back benefits. The order to be implemented within a week.
2. Respondent Asghar Khan was appointed as a temporary Chowkidar at Tubewell Sub‑Division, Obauro. His appointment being liable to termination without assigning any reasons and without notice. This was the order passed by the Executive Engineer dated 12‑12‑1993. By another order dated 25‑1‑1994 the order of appointment was cancelled. Admittedly Asghar Khan had worked as Chowkidar for 42 days and the order of appointment was implemented and had taken effect.
3. The main question for consideration in this case is whether Asghar Khan Chowkidar is a civil. servant or a worker under the I. R. O. , 1969. It is admitted fact that Asghar Khan was not appointed on work‑charge basis for any particular Project. Nor does he come under the definition of worker under the Workmen's Compensation Act Schedule II, section 2(1)(n) nor is he a worker under the Factories Act.
4. It has been argued that a Chowkidar is a worker as held in the decision governing labour cases but the question here is whether he is also a civil servant and not excluded from the definition of civil servant because of his being a Chowkidar. Since his case does not come under the exception to the definition of civil servant and he is neither appointed on work‑charge basis nor has he been defined as a worker under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Factories Act he continues to be a civil servant and his case has to be heard by the Service Tribunal excluding the jurisdiction of all other Courts including the High Court.
5. In the result the decision of the Labour Court as being without jurisdiction has no legal effect and is set aside. The appeal of the Executive Engineer is allowed. H.B.T./153/Lb.S Appeal allowed.