1984 PLP 960 (PLC(CS))
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LAHORE CANTT. DIVISION (E), WAPDA Versus MANSAB ALI
| Citation | 1984 PLP 960 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LAHORE CANTT. DIVISION (E), WAPDA Versus MANSAB ALI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 960 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 960 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 960 (PLC(CS)) (EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LAHORE CANTT. DIVISION (E), WAPDA Versus MANSAB ALI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh Tariq Masood for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 12th June, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 25‑A read with West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S. 17 (1‑B)‑ WAPDA employee‑ Not a deputationist ‑ A civil servant for purposes of Service Tribunals Act, 1973‑Cannot invoke jurisdiction of Labour Court. F. U. Malik v. WA PDA 1983 S C M R 663 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Kh Tariq Masood for Respondent. Date of hearing : 12th June, 1983. The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 11th January, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.
1. Lahore, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service holding that the suspension was illegal.
2. The appeal succeeds on the short ground that the appellant being a civil servant, the learned lower Court was devoid of jurisdiction to order the re‑instatement of the respondent. The respondent is not a deputationist and thus is a WAPDA employee. By virtue of section 17(1‑B) of the WAPDA Act he is a civil servant for the purposes of Services Tribunals Act, 1973. The same view has been taken by the .supreme Court in F. U. Malik v. WAPDA (1). The observations made by the Supreme Court read as under :‑ "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 No. XXXI of 1958) because all the employees of the Authority are 'civil servants' as relevant clause of the aforesaid Act, as amended, reads as under :‑ It has been further observed :‑ "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." Relying upon the Supreme Court's authority I hold that the respondent being a civil servant, the learned lower Court had no jurisdiction. I accordingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, direct the return of the grievance petition to the respondent for presentation to the proper forum. A. E, Appeal accepted.