1984 PLP 1498 (PLC(CS))
NAZIR MASIH KHOKHAR Versus DIRECTOR OF FOOD, PUNJAB AND .ANOTHER
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1498 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | NAZIR MASIH KHOKHAR Versus DIRECTOR OF FOOD, PUNJAB AND .ANOTHER |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1498 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1498 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1498 (PLC(CS)) (NAZIR MASIH KHOKHAR Versus DIRECTOR OF FOOD, PUNJAB AND .ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Farooq Ahmad for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th March, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 2 (b) (iii) read with Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923), S. 2(n), Sched. II, cf. (ii)‑Truck driver in Food Department‑Employ ed in connection with operation of a mechanically propelled vehicle Covered by definition of "Workman" under cl. (ii), Sched. II & S. 2 (n) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923‑Not a Civil servant. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
Appellant in person. Farooq Ahmad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th March, 1982. This appeal arises from the decision, dated 18th March, 19:9 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, where by the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed on the sole ground that he was a civil servant and not a workman.
2. The appellant was a driver for driving Truck No. LEO‑9462 at Kasur. The appellant was charge‑sheeted for misconduct. The allega tion was that he was loading‑ wooden planks, belonging to a private person, placed on the bags of grain loaded in the truck. According to the appellant, no enquiry was held and on 31st January, 1979 he was served with a termination letter, dated Ist January, 1979 terminating his services from 1st October, 1978.
3. The learned lower Court has not discussed how the appel lant is covered by the definition of civil servant and is not a workman. The definition of civil servant given in the Civil Servants Act excludes those employees who are covered by the defini tion of workman given in section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensa tion Act and the Factories Act. According to the definition of workman given in section 2(n) read with Schedule II, clause (ii), any person, who is employed otherwise than on a railway in connection with the operation or maintenance of a lift or vehicle propelled by steam or other mechanical power or by electricity is a workman. A truck is a vehicle propelled by mechanical power i.e. diesel or petrol. Since the appellant was a driver on a truck, therefore, he is covered by the definition of workman given in Workmen's Compensation Act and thus stood excluded from the definition of civil servant. The question may arise whether the Food Department is working in the administration of State, but since no' such question was raised, nor any evidence is on the record about the functions and duties of the Food Depart ment, nor the lower Court gave any finding on this point, in appeal such a point cannot be thrashed out. I, accordingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, remand the case for decision on merits. A. E. Case remanded.