1995 PLP 354 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD MITHAL and 3 others Versus SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL AND LIVESTOCK DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, KARACHI and 2 others
| Citation | 1995 PLP 354 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MITHAL and 3 others Versus SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL AND LIVESTOCK DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, KARACHI and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 354 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 354 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 354 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD MITHAL and 3 others Versus SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL AND LIVESTOCK DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, KARACHI and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Latif Saghar for Appellants.
- Mazhar Ali Chohan, AGP for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th February, 1995.
- 5. It has been argued by the learned Advocate for the appellants that the appellants are not civil servants within the meaning of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. A civil servant is defined in section 2(b) of the said Act as:
- 7. The learned Advocate for the appellants has produced copy of a Notification by the Directorate of Agricultural Engineering, Sindh, dated 30‑6‑1994 that their Workshops are governed by the Factories Act. This Notification was not produced before the Labour Court and it has been issued subsequent to the date on which the cause of action arose. It cannot, therefore, be considered.
- 8. The learned Advocate has then referred to the cross‑examination of Abdul Haq Khoso, Agricultural Engineer, before the Labour Court wherein he has stated, that Workshops are registered under the Factories Act but that admission would not make all the employees to be regarded as Workers under the Factories Act unless they answer the description given under the definition of worker under that Act.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Employees who were employed by Government's Agricultural and Livestock Department as Senior Store‑Keepers under Director. Agricultural Engineering had filed grievance petition for redress of their grievances‑‑‑Employees who were Government servants and were drawing salaries under Basic Pay Scales, were not "workers" and could not take advantage. of provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
Judgment & Decree
3. The Government in their Written Statement have denied the allegations and contended that the appellants are civil servants, governed by the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and they cannot have recourse to section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969.
4. The learned Labour Court, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that their grievance applications were not maintainable and the same were, therefore, dismissed. Against this order they have preferred this appeal.
5. It has been argued by the learned Advocate for the appellants that the appellants are not civil servants within the meaning of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. A civil servant is defined in section 2(b) of the said Act as: " Civil servant' means a person who is member of a civil service of the Province or holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province, but does not include a person who is worker or workman as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923." A `factory' is defined under section 2(j) of the Factories Act, 1934 as under:‑‑ 'factory' means any premises, including the precincts thereof, whereon ten or more workers are working, or were ,working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on or is ordinarily carried on with or without the aid of power, but does not include a mine, subject to the operation of the Mines Act, 1923." A `worker' in a Factory is defined under section 2(h) of the Factories Act, 1934 as under: " `Worker' means a person employed, whether for wages or not, in any manufacturing process, or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process, or in any other kind of work whatsoever, incidental to or connected with the subject of the manufacturing process, but does not include any person solely employed in a clerical capacity in any room or place where no manufacturing process is being carried on." In the Agricultural Engineering Department admittedly no manufacturing process is carried on nor were the appellants associated with any manufacturing process though they could be said to be doing clerical work in that Department.
6. The other exception under the definition of `civil servant' is the workman who is governed by the Workmen's Compensation Act. Under subsection (n) of section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act `workman' is defined any person who is a Railways Servant etc. This has, obviously, no application to the case of the appellants. .
7. The learned Advocate for the appellants has produced copy of a Notification by the Directorate of Agricultural Engineering, Sindh, dated 30‑6‑1994 that their Workshops are governed by the Factories Act. This Notification was not produced before the Labour Court and it has been issued subsequent to the date on which the cause of action arose. It cannot, therefore, be considered.
8. The learned Advocate has then referred to the cross‑examination of Abdul Haq Khoso, Agricultural Engineer, before the Labour Court wherein he has stated, that Workshops are registered under the Factories Act but that admission would not make all the employees to be regarded as Workers under the Factories Act unless they answer the description given under the definition of worker under that Act.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that since no manufacturing process is carried out in the Agricultural Engineering Workshop the exception to the civil servant definition under the Civil Servants Act will not apply to the present appellants and they are subject to the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of the Government. The appellants, who are Government servants drawing salaries under the Basic Pay Scales and are not workers within the meaning of Factories Act, cannot therefore, take advantage of the provisions in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
10. I find, therefore, no substance in this appeal. The order of the leaned Labour Court, Sukkur, is therefore, maintained and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./2415/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed