1995 PLP 664 (PLC(CS))
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION, NAUSHERO FEROZE Versus QADIR BUX
| Citation | 1995 PLP 664 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION, NAUSHERO FEROZE Versus QADIR BUX |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 664 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 664 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 664 (PLC(CS)) (THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION, NAUSHERO FEROZE Versus QADIR BUX). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Latif Saghar for Appellant.
- Shabbir Ahmed Awan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th May, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Employee being Chowkidar in Engineering Department of Sindh Province, did not fall within definition of "workman" either under Factories Act, 1934 or under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, his grievance petition would not be maintainable as in his case jurisdiction of Labour Court had been barred under Service Tribunals Act, 1973. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑On filing appeal by employer against order of Labour Court respondent‑employee argued that appeal filed by employer was time‑barred as same was filed after 30 days‑‑‑Order passed by Trial Court which was passed without jurisdiction, being void, objection as to limitation would not arise in ‑case of such order because in such case time would not run from date of passing that order; but there would be a continuing cause of action against that void order.
Judgment & Decree
Shabbir Ahmed Awan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th May, 1995. This appeal arises from order of the VIIth Labour Court, Sukkur, allowing the grievance petition of one Qadir Bux Chowkidar in the Engineering Department, Government of Sindh and directing his reinstatement in service with back benefits.
2. The grievance of the Chowkidar in his petition filed in the Labour Court was that although under the Medical Certificate issued, his age of retirement should have been on 9‑1‑1995. He was retired on 9‑1‑1991 according to the earlier entries in his Service Book.
3. The learned counsel for the Executive Engineer the appellant, has rightly pointed out that the grievance petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 is not maintainable because the respondent Chowkidar is a civil servant and jurisdiction of all the Courts has been barred under the Service Tribunals' Act. Section 2(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 defines a civil servant as under:‑‑ "`Civil servant' means a person who is member of civil service of the Province or holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province, but does not include a person who is `worker' or `workman' as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923."
4. The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to show that the Chowkidar in the Engineering Department of Sindh falls within the definition of workman under the Factories Act or the Workmen's Compensati6n Act. The grievance petition of the Chowkidar would not therefore be maintainable, as the jurisdiction of the Labour Court would be barred.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent has on the other hand argued that the appeal of Executive Engineer was filed after 30 days and it was therefore time‑barred. It has however been pointed out by Mr. Latif Saghar that after 30 days the Appellate Tribunal was closed for vacation and the appeal was therefore filed immediately on the opening day.
6. In any case the objection as to limitation would not arise in the case of a void order and order passed without jurisdiction is void, as such the time will not run from the date of passing that order and there would be a continuing cause of action against a void order.
7. The grievance application of Qadir Bux was not therefore maintainable under the I.R.O. as only the Services Tribunal could decide the question regarding terms and conditions of service. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside and the appeal of the Executive Engineer is allowed. The back benefits deposited may be refunded to the appellant. H.B.T./2483/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal allowed.