1989 PLP 888 (PLC(CS))

Appeal No. LHR‑5 of 1988, decided on 1st February, 1988. ‑‑‑Ss. 2(viii), 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S. 2(1)(b)(iii)‑ "Workman"‑‑"Civil servant"‑‑Statistical Inspector of Pakistan Railway filing grievance petition before Labour Court‑‑Petition resisted on plea that petitioner was a civil servant‑‑Labour Court for reasons that petitioners had been declared "employer" deciding that he was not a civil servant‑‑Such proceeding, held, was erroneous as that person could not be civil servant who was a workman‑‑Findings of Labour Court were set aside and case remanded by Appellate Tribunal for decision afresh after providing opportunity to parties about duties of petitioner so as to determine whether petitioner was ousted from definition of "civil servant". Sh. Abdul Jabbar for Appellants. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 1st February, 1988. This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 8‑12‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent was working as Statistical Inspector in Scale No.

11. A post of Office Superintendent in scale No. 14 fell vacant and the respondent was enquired whether he wished to be considered for promotion. He enquired from the office whether the promotion was on regular basis or on adhoc basis. Without sending reply of this query the department posted him as Office Superintendent in officiating capacity. The respondent refused to take the charge whereupon his junior was posted as such and the respondent was placed at the bottom of the seniority list of Head Clerks/Statistical Inspectors. The respondent in his grievance petition challenged the act of the appellants whereby he was placed junior. In the written statement inter alia it was pleaded that the respondent was a `civil servant'. The learned lower Court has decided the case in favour of the respondent and has held that he is not a civil servant. The reason given by the learned lower Court is that the respondent was declared as an employer and thus he was not a civil servant. This finding of the learned lower Court is wrong. Only that person stands ousted from the definition of `civil servant' who comes within the definition of `workman' defined either in the Factories Act or in the Workmen's Compensation Act. There is no finding about the duties of the respondent, therefore, it cannot be said definitely that he is or not a civil servant. The parties should have led B evidence on the point but in the absence of evidence the learned lower Court could not definitely say that the respondent was not a civil servant. The respondent says that since he has been retired no question of his promotion or seniority arises. If he is no longer interested he may withdraw the case if so advised.

3. As a result the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded with the direction that after giving opportunity to the parties to produce evidence on the point of civil servant the said point and the whole case, if the learned lower Court finds that the respondent is not a civil servant, be decided. A.E./498/Lb. P Case remanded