1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Mian Iqbal Khalid for Petitioner. Mahmood Hussain for Respondents. The petitioner challenges the order dated 16th June, 1982 passed by the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby his appeal was dismissed and the order of the respondent No. 2 granting a sum of Rs.16,568.94 as delayed wages to the respondents 3 to 6 was maintained.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that respondents 3 to 6, who were working as Linemen in the Electricity Wing of WAPDA, were transferred by the Superintending Engineer, from one sub‑division to the other vide order, dated 17th of July, 1979. They were also relieved of their duties and the charge was given to the new incumbents on 18th July, 1979. The respondents, however, challenged the order of transfer under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before 'the Punjab Labour Court No.III, on the ground that same has been done mala fidely to curb the trade‑union activities. The Labour Court passed a status quo order on 27th of August, 1979 but the respondents 3 to 6 remained absent from duty. Subsequently, on understanding being reached before the Labour Court, the respondents were transferred within the Sahiwal Circle and they withdrew their petition on 13th April, 1980.

3. The respondents 3 to 6 then filed an application under section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act before the respondent No. 2 for paying them a sum of Rs.17,399 as delayed wages in addition to 10 times compensation. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2 but he accepted the application of the respondents without reverting to the question of jurisdiction and directed payment of a sum of Rs.16,568.94 vide his order dated 29th of March, 1981. An appeal of the petitioner failed as stated above. He has now filed the present constitutional petition.

4. It is contended that as the respondents 3 to 6 were civil servants in view of section 17(1‑B) of the WAPDA Act they could not be granted any relief by respondents 1 and 2 in respect of their terms and conditions of the service. The learned counsel for the respondent states that the WAPDA is a factory and, therefore, the respondents do not fall within the definition of civil servants.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the contention of the petitioner has much force. Section 17(1‑B) of the WAPDA Act has been incorporated to state that the respondents shall be civil servants for the purpose of Services Tribunal. The dispute which had been taken to the respondents 1 and 2 also pertains to their terms and conditions of service. In view of Article 212 therefore, the jurisdiction exercised by the respondents 1 and 2 in respect of the terms and conditions of respondents 3 to 6 was without lawful authority. In view of the above, the impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The parties shall bear their own costs. A. E. Petition accepted.