1989 PLP 688 (PLC(CS))

Employees of Post and Telegraph Department employed in any occupation ordinarily involving outdoor work are workmen‑‑Respondent employee of Post and Telegraph Department performing duty of dealing with registered letters and parcels etc. in the office and having no outdoor duty is not covered by Cl.(xiii), Sched.‑II of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923‑‑Definition of worker given in Factories Act was not relevant because Post and Telegraph Office does not come within definition of a factory‑‑Labour Court, held, had wrongly held that respondent was a workman‑‑Impugned decision set aside and grievance petition directed to be returned to respondent for want of jurisdiction. Muhammad Zamae Oureshi for Appellant. Malik Yahya Saleem for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th June, 1988. This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 25‑4‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala, whereby the application of the respondent for his reinstatement in service has been allowed without back benefits and the appellant has been permitted to hold proper inquiry against the respondent.

2. The respondent was a clerk in the Post Office, Wazirabad and he was removed from service on 7‑2‑1978 without the issuance of any charge‑sheet and holding inquiry. The allegation was of absence. In the written statement it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the respondent was a civil servant. The learned lower Court has returned the verdict that the respondent is a workman and for this purpose has relied upon 1988 P L C

114. It has not been held in the said authority that all the employees of Post Office whether they have indoor or outdoor duties are workmen and not civil servants. The ruling, therefore, is distinguishable. Reliance has been placed by the learned lower Court on P L D 1975 Lah.1072 also but the said ruling also is not helpful. It has been observed, "Where there are two possible interpretations of a statutory provision contained in the labour law, the one beneficial to the labour is to be adopted:" There is no question of two interpretations of any provision of law. The respondent being an employee of the Post Office is employed in the affairs of the State and if he comes within any of the exceptions of the definition of civil servant, only then he can be declared workman and not civil servant. The learned lower Court has not given finding that the respondent falls in any exception. The exception relevant to the case is that if the employee is covered by the definition of workman given either in the Factories Act or in the Workmen's Compensation Act, he will not be a civil servant. The definition of workman is given in section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act read with its Schedule‑II. Clause (xiii) of Schedule‑II is germane to the present case and according to it, the employees of the Post and Telegraph Department who are employed in any occupation ordinarily involving outdoor work are workmen. The respondent in his statement said that his duty was to deal with registered letters and parcels etc. in the office. He did not say that he had any outdoor duty. Thus he is not covered by clause (xiii) of Schedule‑II. The definition of workman given in the Factories Act is not relevant because the Post and Telegraph Office cannot come within the definition of a factory. The learned lower Court has thus wrongly held that the respondent is a workman.

3. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respondent is directed to be returned to the respondent for want of jurisdiction. S.S.Q./553/Lb.P Appeal accepted