1978 PLC 101 (PLP)
TASNEEM-UR‑REHMAN Versus RESIDENT ENGINEER, GAS TURBINE POWER STATION,
| Citation | 1978 PLC 101 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | M. Jamil Asghar, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | TASNEEM-UR‑REHMAN Versus RESIDENT ENGINEER, GAS TURBINE POWER STATION, |
| Primary Law | (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLC 101 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLC 101 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: M. Jamil Asghar, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLC 101 (PLP) (TASNEEM-UR‑REHMAN Versus RESIDENT ENGINEER, GAS TURBINE POWER STATION,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nazir Ahmad Naz for Appellant.
- Mohsin Zaidi for Respondents.
- Date of hearings 1st June 1977
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 25‑A‑West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXIX of 1958), S. 17 (I‑B), Civil Servants Act (LXX of 1973), S 2(b), Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 3(2) read with Factories Act (XXV of 1934), S. 2(g) and Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923), Sched. II‑‑Persons employed as Sub‑Station Attendant in Grid‑Station and as Electrician in Electrical and Mechanical Workshop of WAPDA‑Not to be deemed as civil servants but workmen under Labour Laws‑‑Labour Court, held, possessed jurisdiction to entertain petitions under S. 25‑A of Ordinance.
S. 25‑A read with Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952), Se. 6 & 7‑A‑Labour Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain petitions under S. 25‑A of Ordinance till such time that Rules are framed under Act. Radio Pakistan Workers' Union v. Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation 1976 P L C 657 1 The General Manager, Heavy Mechanical Complex, Taxila v. Mr. Mamoon A. Kazi, Senior Member, N.1. R. C. and another 1977 P L C 532 ref:
Judgment & Decree
Service under the Authority is hereby declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under the Authority, not being a person who is on deputation to the Authority from any province, shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (LXX of 1973).
7. According to section 3(2) of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the Service Tribunal shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servant, including disciplinary matters.
8. According to section 2(b) of Civil Servants Act, 1973, civil servant means a person who is a member of an All Pakistan Service or of a Civil Service of the Federation, or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation including any such post connected with defence, but does not include: (i) A person who is on deputation to the Federation from any province or other authority; (ii) A person who is employed on contract, or on work charged basis, or who is paid from contingencies; or (iii) A person who is a "worker" or "workman" as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1931), or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923),
9. Now the point for determination is as to whether both the appellants fall either under the Factories Act or under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
10. As already mentioned above, Tasneem Rehman, appellant was employed as a Sub‑Station Attendant in a Grid Station and Akbar Khan, appellant was employed as an Electrician in the Electrical and Mechanical` Workshop of WAPDA.
11. Section 2(g) of the Factories Act defines manufacturing process as under: "Manufacturing process" means any process. (i) for making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing or packing, or otherwise treating any article or substance with a view to its use, sale transport, delivery or disposal; or (ii) for pumping oil, water or sewage; or (iii) for generating, transferring or transmitting power.
12. According to item 2 of Schedule II of Workmen's Compensation Act, a workman employed in any premises wherein, or within, the precincts whereof on any day of the preceding twelve months, ten or more persons have been employed in any manufacturing process as defined in clause (g) of section 2 of the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934), or in any kind of work whatsoever incidental to or connected with any of such manu facturing process or with the article made, and steam, water or other mechanical power or electrical power is used, is a workman under the said Act.
13. According to item XIX of Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act, a workman employed in the generating, transforming, or supplying of electrical energy or in the generating or supplying of gas, is a workman under the said Act.
14. Thus from the nature of duties performed by the both the appellant, I find that they full within the definition of workman under the Factories Act as well as under the Workmen's Compensation Act as specified in Schedule
11. In view of the above, they will not be deemed to be Civil Servants under the Civil Servants Act, and as such the Service Tribunal will have no jurisdiction. Therefore, they will be deemed to be workman under the Labour Laws and as such the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petitions.
15. The learned counsel for the respondents in both the appeals raised another legal objection to the effect that in. view of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1953 (LIII of 1953) which had bean made applicable to WAPDA, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitions filed by both the appellants. In this connection they referred to Notification No. 11/12/71‑Poll. I(2) dated 21‑2‑1977, whereby the Ministry's Notification No. S. R. O 856 (1)/76 dated 26.8‑1976, declaring all employment in or in connection with the organizations dealing with the generation, trans mission, distribution of or supply of electricity, to be essential services, shall remain in force for a further period of six months commencing on the 26th February, 1977. In support of their contention they relied on a Single Bench Judgment of the Lahore High Court in the case, Radio Pakistan Workers' Union v. Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (1976 P L C 657), wherein it was observed that the specified authority under the Rules framed under sections 6 and 7‑A of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act alone which was empowered to take cognizance of matters concerning the conditions of service of workmen and no such jurisdiction of the Labour Court was barred in respect thereof.
16. In the Division Bench Judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 22‑12‑1976 in the case, The General Manager, Heavy Mechanical Complex, Taxila v. Mr. Mamoon A. Kazi, Senior Member, N. L R. C. and another (1977 P L C 532) it was observed: "The provisions of West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance which contain these terms were applicable to the respondents and they provide a forum for redress of any grievance that may arise thereunder. The specified authority, if it wanted to change the forum or terms and conditions of the respondent;, should have framed regulations in the light of rule 3(2), but admittedly nothing thereunder has been done
17. It was further observed: "There is nothing to show that the `specified authority' has been substi tuted for the Labour Court' or that it has been given the appellate or revisional powers. The provisions of the Act are thus not in conflict with the industrial Disputes Ordinance, or the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance. The remedy of the respondents lay with the Labour Court till such time a different forum was provided. The order of dismissal against the orders, therefore, was bad in law."
18. From the above it is clear that the Labour Court will have jurisdiction to entertain such petitions till such time that the Rules are framed under the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act.
19. I, accordingly, accept both the appeals, set aside the decisions of the Labour Court and remand the case back for decisions on merits in accordance with lave. Appeal accepted.