1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
HABIB-UR-REHMAN Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS,
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Kh. Abdul Jalil and Ch. Hasan Nawaz, Members |
| Parties | HABIB-UR-REHMAN Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, |
| Primary Law | Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Kh. Abdul Jalil and Ch. Hasan Nawaz, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (HABIB-UR-REHMAN Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Rasool Azhar for Petitioner.
- M. Yawar Ali Khan for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
- Abid Hasan Minto for Respondents Nos. 4 to 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 8, 9, 12 and 13.
- Date of hearing: 9th April, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
S.2(1) (n)
Railways Act (IX of 1890), S. 3 & Sched. II
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4
Appellant serving as foreman in Pakistan Railway, whether a civil servant so as to bring him within jurisdiction of Service Tribunal
Person serving in Railway Department would be a workman within meaning of 5. 2(1) (n), Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, thus outside the ambit of S. 4 (1), Service Tribunals Act, 1973
Appellant's appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. According to the definition of a "workman" given in section 2(1) (n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, a person has necessarily to be a railway servant as defined in section 3 of the Railway Act, 1890. Then, he would be a workman if he was employed in any of the capacities specified in Schedule II of the Railways Act regardless of the nature of his functions and the office in which he was working. Further even if he was not employed in any of the capacities specified in Schedule II, he would nonetheless be a workman if he was not permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub divisional office of a Railway. In other words, to acquire a status other than of a workman, a railway servant must simultaneously possess two qualifications; first, his employment should not be of the category specified in Schedule II, Railways Act. Second, he should be in permanent employment, in any administrative, district or sub-divisional office of a Railway. Therefore, in view of this consideration the appellant who was a Foreman (Power) was not permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub-divisional office of a Railway; regardless of whether he was or was not employed in any of the capacities mentioned in Schedule II of the Railways Act. Appellant was a railway servant under section 3 of the Railways Act 1890, was not permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub divisional office of a railway, was employed in one of the capacities mentioned in Schedule II of the Railways Act and, therefore, was a workman within the meaning of section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. This evidently brought about a situation taking him out of the ambit of section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
Judgment & Decree
S.2(1) (n)
Railways Act (IX of 1890), S. 3 & Sched. II
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4
Appellant serving as foreman in Pakistan Railway, whether a civil servant so as to bring him within jurisdiction of Service Tribunal
Person serving in Railway Department would be a workman within meaning of 5. 2(1) (n), Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, thus outside the ambit of S. 4 (1), Service Tribunals Act, 1973
Appellant's appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. According to the definition of a "workman" given in section 2(1) (n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, a person has necessarily to be a railway servant as defined in section 3 of the Railway Act, 1890. Then, he would be a workman if he was employed in any of the capacities specified in Schedule II of the Railways Act regardless of the nature of his functions and the office in which he was working. Further even if he was not employed in any of the capacities specified in Schedule II, he would nonetheless be a workman if he was not permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub divisional office of a Railway. In other words, to acquire a status other than of a workman, a railway servant must simultaneously possess two qualifications; first, his employment should not be of the category specified in Schedule II, Railways Act. Second, he should be in permanent employment, in any administrative, district or sub-divisional office of a Railway. Therefore, in view of this consideration the appellant who was a Foreman (Power) was not permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub-divisional office of a Railway; regardless of whether he was or was not employed in any of the capacities mentioned in Schedule II of the Railways Act. Appellant was a railway servant under section 3 of the Railways Act 1890, was not permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub divisional office of a railway, was employed in one of the capacities mentioned in Schedule II of the Railways Act and, therefore, was a workman within the meaning of section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. This evidently brought about a situation taking him out of the ambit of section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Ch. Ghulam Rasool Azhar for Petitioner. M. Yawar Ali Khan for Respondents Nos. 1 to
3. Abid Hasan Minto for Respondents Nos. 4 to 7, 10, 11, 14, and
15. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 8, 9, 12 and