1995 PLP 369 (PLC)

Asmat Kamal Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th March, 1995. This is an appeal from the decision of the Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, dated 8th of March, 1994, whereby the grievance petition filed by the respondent was accepted and the order of his suspension, dated 8th September, 1993 was declared as unjustified and void.

2. The respondent was an employee of the appellant as Meter Reader. While he was posted in the Civil Lines Sub‑Division (E),; WAPDA, Gujranwala, he on 27th of April, 1989 was involved in a case under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for accepting an amount of Rs.1,500 as illegal gratification. After receipt of sanction for his prosecution, he was placed under suspension with immediate effect vide order, dated 8th September, 1993 issued by the appellant. On 12th of September, 1993 he filed a grievance petition assailing his suspension on the ground that on the same allegation a departmental inquiry was held against him but no punitive action was taken against him as a result thereof.

3. Alongwith the grievance petition, the respondent filed an application for a temporary injunction suspending the operation of the order of his suspension till the disposal of his grievance petition. A notice in the application was sent to the appellant for 11th of October, 1993 suspending the operation of the suspension order meanwhile. On 8th of March, 1994 the appellant appeared and made a statement that in the departmental inquiry held into the allegation the respondent was exonerated. On the basis of this statement, the impugned decision was passed.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The WAPDA employees have been declared as civil servants by virtue of section 17(1‑B) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 with effect from 30th of September, 1975. Consequently, the Service Tribunal alone has jurisdiction to adjudicate with regard to their terms and conditions. WAPDA and another v. Muhammad Arshad Quraishi 1986 SCMR 18 and Government of Balochistan and others v. Shabir Ahmad and another (1990 SCMR 1233) and an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Waris Amin v. Federation of Pakistan and others (Civil Appeals Nos. 148, 160 and 161 of 1990), decided on 15th of July, 1991 support this view.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that since the order of suspension is not final, the Labour Court alone has jurisdiction in the matter. This contention is devoid of force. After the declaration of the WAPDA employees as civil servants by virtue of section 17(1‑B) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 with effect from 30th of September, 1975, they stand excluded froth the category of `workman' as defined in section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Therefore, the Labour Court has ceased to have jurisdiction in the matter of disciplinary proceedings against them.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the Labour Court was not competent to entertain the grievance petition of the respondent and pass the impugned decision. Therefore, this appeal is accepted, the impugned decision is set aside and the grievance petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. H.B.T./782/Lb.P Appeal accepted.