1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS))
BAQA MUHAMMAD Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE
| Citation | 1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | 1976 P L C C. S. T. 1(2) |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Chairman, Ashfaq Ali Khan and Khalid Farooq Akbar, Members |
| Parties | BAQA MUHAMMAD Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the 1976 P L C C. S. T. 1(2) bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Chairman, Ashfaq Ali Khan and Khalid Farooq Akbar, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS)) (BAQA MUHAMMAD Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
Case No. 253 of 1974. Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑ ‑‑‑‑ Ss. 2(b) & 4 read with Sched. II, para. 1‑Car driver employed in Civil Defence Directorate‑A "workman" within ambit of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and not a "Civil Servant" within meaning of Ss. 2(b) hence not entitled to appeal before Tribunal. Sharif Hussain Bukhari for Appellant. SAAD SAOOD JAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑The appellant is a driver in the Direc torate of Civil Defence, Punjab. He has filed this appeal against incorrect fixation of his pay. It may be stated that this Tribunal is competent to hear appeals pf civil servants only. The expression "Civil Servant" is defined in clause (b) of section 2, Punjab Administrative Tribunals, Act. Suffice it to say that all persons who are workmen within the ambit of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 have been excluded from the 'definition of the `Civil Servant'. Clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 2 defines a `Workman' "as any person
who is
employed on monthly wages not exceeding Rs. 1000 in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II". Paragraph 1 of Schedule it includes "any person who is employed, otherwise than on a Railway, in connection with the operation or maintenance of a lift or a vehicle propelled by steam or other mechanical power or by electricity". Admittedly, the appellant does not draw pay exceeding Rs. 1,000 per month. He is undoubtedly employed in connection with the operation of car which is propelled by mechanical power. There can, therefore, be n doubt that he is a workman within the definition of the said expression in the Workmen's Compensation Act. Consequently he is not a civil servant within the meaning of clause (b) of section 2, Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act. This appeal is, therefore, incompetent and is hereby dismissed in limine.