1986 PLP 485 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑Ss. 2 (xxviii) & 25‑A‑‑Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), Ss. 4 & 176‑‑Jurisdiction of Labour Court‑‑Not barred in case of workers of Municipal Committees‑‑Employee of Municipal Committee‑ Whether a workman‑‑Depends upon nature of duties‑‑Fact that employees of Municipal Committee declared as public servants for purposes of S. 21 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860‑‑Not sufficient to oust them from pale of workmen if otherwise covered by definition of workman. Manzoor Ahmad for Appellant. Date of hearing: 5th December, 1984. Appeal No. 1 arises from the decision, dated 24‑10‑1984 and the remaining six appeals captioned above arise from the orders, dated 10‑10‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala in separate grievance petitions of the respondents, disallowing the preliminary objections of the appellant. Since the objections decided by the learned lower Court are the same in all the seven appeals, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. It has been argued that the Punjab Essential Services Act, 1958 applies to the respondents, so the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts is barred. Learned lower Court has held that the above‑mentioned Act h, applies to services relating to transport or civil defence. This finding, however, is erroneous but it makes no difference upon the present case, inasmuch as the Act does not bar the jurisdiction of the Courts, nor it provides a separate special forum. So the Labour Courts have jurisdiction. Likewise, there is no provision in the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 which may have debarred the Labour Courts from hearing the cases of the workers of Municipal Committees. No I section of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 has been pointed out that may have barred the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts. Section 4, no doubt, says that the Ordinance shall override other Laws. Since there is no provision debarring the Labour Courts' jurisdiction, the said section is not helpful to the appellant.

3. This argument too is devoid of force that a public servant is not a workman. Section 176 declares the members and servants of Local Council as public servants but it makes no difference. They are public servants for the purposes of section 21 of Penal Code only. It depends C upon the duties of an employee to see if he is covered by the definition of workman or not and the mere fact that a person is public servant is not sufficient to oust him from the pale of workman, if otherwise he is covered by the definition.

4. No other point has been argued. The objections that need evidence shall be decided by the learned lower Court after inviting the evidence.

5. As a result, all the seven appeals are dismissed in limine. A.E. Appeals dismissed.