1983 PLP 663 (SCMR)

MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J. ‑Leave is sought by this petition to appeal against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, (Camp) Lahore, dated 29th March, 1982, passed in Appeal No. 243/L of 1979.

2. F. U. Malik, petitioner was a permanent employee of Wapda since 1960, and serving as Senior Budget and Accounts Officer in the office of the Manager, Finance (Power) Wapda House, Lahore, when he was charge‑sheeted on 6th June, 1977, by the Member (Finance) for nepotism in the award of certain contracts and misconduct for construc tion of a bungalow in Karachi regarded as beyond the ostensible means of the petitioner. He submitted his reply to the aforesaid charge‑sheet on 18th June, 1977. Second charge‑sheet was served on him on 2nd October, 1978 wherein the first two charges were dropped and the third re garding construction of bungalow was mentioned. Petitioner submitted his reply to this charge‑sheet on 1st November, 1978. Thereafter, Director (Enquiries) Wapda was deputed to enquire into the charges who in his report dated 26th February, 1979, exonerated the petitioner but still the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 6th May, 1979, re cording the fact that this action was taken by the full authority of Wapda. Petitioner then served a grievance notice on the Wapda on 15th May, 1979, under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 to which no reply was received from the respondent Wapda. Therefore, petitioner submitted an application on 30th May, 1979 before the Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, which by order dated 31st May, 1979, suspended the operation of impugned order dated 6th May, 1979. This was challenged by the respondent by a revision petition before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed on 25th June, 1979. Thereafter, the respondent re‑instated the petitioner on 4th July, 1979.

3. Respondent Wapda, however, filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court against the order of the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Punjab Labour Court, which was accepted by the High Court vide order dated 29th October, 1979 holding that the Labour Courts had no jurisdiction in the matter and the Wapda employees being "civil servants" their appeal was competent only before the Service Tri bunal. Petitioner, therefore, filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal, which was admitted on 16th January, 1980 but was dismissed on 29th March, 1982, on the ground that the petitioner should have been aware of that import of Wapda Act, 1958, in general and section 17 (1‑B) of the said Act in particular and the appeal also failed on point of limitation provided in proviso (a) to section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 and the Limitation Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Service Tribunal has misconstrued the provision of proviso (a) to section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act and the Limitation Act : that the order of removal from service having been passed not by any subordinate authority of Wapda but by Wapda itself, no departmental appeal, revi sion or review was available to the petitioner.

5. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and find that there could be no plausible excuse for the petitioner to have not availed of his right as a Government servant under the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958 (West Pakistan Act XXXI of 1958) because all the employees of the Authority are `civil servants' as relevant section of the aforesaid Act, as amended, reads as follows "Section 17 (1‑B).‑‑Service under the Authority is hereby declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under the Authority, not being a person who is on deputation to the Authority from any province, shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purpose of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973."

6. We agree with the finding of the learned Service Tribunal that the petitioner holding very responsible post of Senior Budget and Accounts Officer should have been aware of the provisions of section 17 (1‑B) of the Wapda Act, 1958 as amended and that the petitioner was rightly refused the condonation of delay in filing his appeal. We find no merit in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.