1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The petitioners by this revision petition call in question the judgments and decrees of the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad dated 11th of October, 1988 and of the learned Civil Judge, Faisalabad dated 18th of March, 1986.

2. A suit for recovery of Rs 34,655.41 was filed by the respondent against the petitioners in forma pauperis in which it was alleged that the respondent was a Station Master in the employment of petitioners when on 30th of August, 1977 he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. According to the respondent he was entitled to receive a sum of Rs.34,655.41, from the petitioners on account of pensionary benefits and other emoluments which had been wrongly withheld by the petitioners. He, therefore, prayed for a decree for the recovery of this amount. During the pendency of the suit, a sum of Rs.17,711.60 were paid by the petitioners to the respondent. On 18‑3‑1986 the suit was decreed for the remaining amount of Rs.16,944.21 by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against this decree. Hence this revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that as the claim of the respondent was for recovery of emoluments it related to the terms and conditions of the respondent, who is a civil servant, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit was barred. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, objected that this plea was not raised by the petitioners at any stage before any of the Courts below, and should not be entertained at this stage. In the present case, from the averments made in the plaint itself it is quite evident that the respondent was a civil servant working in the employment of the petitioners and the dispute related to the terms and conditions of his employment. The jurisdiction of the civil Court was, therefore, on the face of the record barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, read with Service Tribunal Act, 1973. Though such an objection was not raised by the petitioners at any stage but as the lack of jurisdiction is patent on the face of record and no factual inquiry is necessary, such an objection can be raised for the first time in these proceedings. The Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs and others v. Aslam Ali Shah P L D 1985 S C 82 and Rashid Ahmad v. The State P L D 1972 S C 271 are referred. It may be stated that there was some controversy between the parties as to whether the respondent was a civil servant or a workman but after some arguments the learned counsels are agreed that the respondent was a civil servant and not workman. In these circumstances the remedy of the respondent was to have approached the Service Tribunal through appropriate proceedings. The learned counsel has voiced an apprehension that if he approaches the Service Tribunal now, his appeal would be barred by time. If this be so, the respondent may apply for condonation of delay which request will be considered by the Tribunal on its own merits in accordance with law. In view of what has been stated above, this revision petition is accepted and the judgments and decrees of both the Courts are set-aside with no order as to costs. H.B.T./I‑123/L ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petition accepted.