1983 PLP 673 (PLC(CS))

This appeal arises from the decision dated 14th May; 1979 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, where by the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed, The appellant had through his grievance petition sought direction of the learned lower court for his promotion. His case is that the department of current check party and revenue were amalgamated and the appellant had served in both the departments. He was entitled to be promoted on the basis of combined seniority. His grievance was that his juniors according to the combined list had been promoted but he was ignored. It was also averred that according to the combined seniority list Chief Engineer was competent to promote hint but neither he nor the Chief Accountant con sidered his applications.

2. One of the grounds of dismissal of application of the appellant given by the learned lower court is that the Chief Engineer was not com petent to promote him but the Chief Accountant was competent, authority and he bad been impleaded as party to the petition. This finding has been given by the lower court on the ground that the appellant had failed to show that his seniority bad been amalgamated alongwith the staff of revenue and current check party. This is factually. wrong Seniority list Exh. P‑4 shows that the incumbents of both Department are mentioned therein with their date of appointment and designation. The appellant finds place at serial No.7 of the seniority list. The respondent has not been able to show Ahat this combined seniority Exh P‑4 is not prevailing. However learned counsel for the respondent has said that the respondent wants to bifurcate the two departments and to prepare separate seniority lists: Since as yet time it has not been done according to the present posi tion the combined seniority list exists and only the Chief Engineer who is above Chief Accountant is competent to decide the question of promotion of the incumbents of both the departments Le, revenue department and the current check party. Since the appellant made many applications for' promotion but no action was taken on it he had a cause of grievance fore coming to the Labour Court. .

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the appellant is not a workman because all the employees of WAPDA were declared civil servants of Pakistan by section 17 (1‑B) of the WAPDA Act. He further argued that while declaring all the employees of WAPDA as civil servants definition of civil servant was not borrowed from any other Act. Appa rently the term civil servant has not been defined in the WAPDA Act. Section 17 (I‑B) has only declared all WAPDA employees as civil servants but to find out who are civil servants we have to look into the definition of the said term. The employees of WAPDA have been declared as civil servants for the purposes of Civil Service Tribunal, therefore, the definition of civil servant given in the Civil Service Tribunal Act is to be looked into. . The said Act has not itself defined civil servant but says that the definition of civil servant is same as given in the Civil Servants Act. In the Civil Servants Act the persons who come within the definition of workman as given in the Factories Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act have been excluded from the definition of civil servant. It is, therefore, to be seen whether appellant come under, the exception. If he come under the exception he would be workman and 18 not civil servant. Under section 2 (m) of the Workmen's Compensation. Act read with schedule II clause (XIX) the employees working in generating, transforming and supplying of electricity energy are Workmen. Clause (XIX) reads as under :‑ "employees employed in generating, transforming and supplying of electricity energy and in the generating and supplying of gas" Since the appellant was employed in the supplying of electricity' energy he comes within the definition of workman and thus excluded from the definition of civil servant. 1, therefore, do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant is not a workman. I accordingly' accept the appeal and setting aside the order of the lower Court direct that the question of promotion of the appellant be considered by the Chief Engineer who is at present compe tent authority in this respect. Appeal accepted.