1991 PLP 66 (PLC)

Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1989. The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 15-8-1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. IV, Faisalabad, whereby holding that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction, the grievance petition of the appellant for setting aside the punishment of stopping of one year annual increment has been returned for presentation to the proper forum.

2. The facts are that the appellant, who is a Line Superintendent Grade-II, was awarded punishment of stopping of increment for one year on the ground that he had installed five electricity connections irregularly. The learned lower Court has accepted the plea of the respondents that the appellant was a civil servant and holding that the Central Service Tribunal has jurisdiction, passed the impugned order. The provisions in Service Tribunals Act, 1973 warrant constitution of two Tribunals. One under subsection (3) of section 3 and the other under subsection (7) of section 3 of the Service Tribunals Act. The Central Services Tribunal has been constituted under subsection (3) of section 3 and no Tribunal has been constituted under subsection (7) of section

3. The Tribunal constituted under subsection (3) has jurisdiction where major penalty of dismissal or removal from service, compulsory retirement has been passed or the employee concerned has been reduced to a lower post or to a lower time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale, as is evident from section 4(2)(2) of the Service Tribunals Act, which reads as under:-- "The appeal shall be preferred in the case of penalty of dismissal from service, removal from service, compulsory retirement, reduction to a lower post or time scale, or to a lower stage in a time scale, to a Tribunal referred to in subsection (3) of section 3." In the present case no major penalty of either dismissal or removal from service, compulsory retirement, -or reduction to a lower post or time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale has been passed. Vide section 2(b) in other cases the Tribunal referred to in subsection (7) of section 3 has jurisdiction. Clause (b) supra reads as under:-- "In any other case, to a Tribunal referred to in subsection (7) of that section." Since no Tribunal has yet been constituted under subsection (7) of section 3, the Labour Courts retain jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondents hail: argued that in the absence of any Tribunal constituted under subsection (7) of section 3, the Civil Courts will have jurisdiction and not the Labour Courts. On the face of it the argument is untenable. The general jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred where a special law has been promulgated and a forum has been created by it. The Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is a special law constituting the Labour Courts therefore, by the promulgation of the said Ordinance, the general jurisdiction of the Civil Courts under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code is barred, so in cases where the civil servants cannot seek remedy from a Services Tribunal, they have to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 if they are otherwise covered by the definition of workman and are employed in any industry or commercial establishment. Since the Central Service Tribunal constituted under subsection (3) of section 3 of the Service Tribunals Act has no jurisdiction, the learned lower Court has wrongly held that it has no jurisdiction.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent has cited 1986 S C M R 18, wherein it has been held that the Service Tribunal alone has jurisdiction to adjudicate with regard to the terms and conditions of WAPDA employees as from 30-9-1975 the jurisdiction of all other Courts, Tribunals, Commissions was affected by Section 17(1-C) of WAPDA Act. There is no cavil about the fact that where the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction with regard to the civil servants and the question involved is of terms and conditions of service, the jurisdiction of other Courts is barred. It has not been held in the ruling cited by the learned counsel that even where Service Tribunal has no jurisdiction, the Labour Court also has no jurisdiction. The ruling, therefore, is distinguishable.

4. As a result of the discussion made above, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, and holding that the Labour Court has jurisdiction, the case is remanded for decision of the remaining points in controversy between the parties. H.B.T./730/Lb.P????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.