2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

It is an admitted position that the applicant had served Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation up to the year 1998, when he retired, section 2(a) of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 has been added in the Service Tribunals Act in the year, 1997, as such when the applicant retired, he was governed by the provision of section 2(A) of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, which reads as under: "Service under certain corporations, etc. to be service of Pakistan. Service under any authority, corporation, body or organization established by or under a Federal Law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has a controlling share of interest is hereby declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under such authority, corporation, body or organization shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of this Act". This section is divided into two parts. Under first part the service under any authority, corporation, body or organization established by or under a federal law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has a controlling share or interest has been declared to be service of Pakistan. Under the second part every person holding a post under such authority, corporation, body or organization have been declared to be Civil Servant. The learned Advocate for the applicant has relied upon the case of Ahmad Yar Chowhan ibid. This is a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The facts of the case are that the employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation were terminated in the year, 1995, therefore, they challenged their termination order departmentally and then approached the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had allowed their appeals and directed their reinstatement in the service with all back-benefits by holding them civil servants. The matter went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, where newly inserted section 2-A was interpreted and has been observed as under:-- "It is quite clear from the definition of 'Civil Servant' given in Service Tribunals Act that a civil servant within the contemplation of Service Tribunals Act is a person, who has been or who is a civil servant within the meanings of Civil Servants Act, 1973 or as the section now stands after amendment of 1997, it also includes a person who is declared to be a civil servant under section 2A of the Service Tribunals Act. It is, therefore, quite clear that in order to entitle a person to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal, relating to a grievance in respect of the terms and conditions of service, he must be either a 'Civil Servant' as defined in the Civil Servant Act, 1973, or has been declared to be a 'Civil Servant' for the purpose of maintaining his appeal under the Service Tribunal Act". With regard to the status of the applicants in the above reported case, it has been observed that their cases related to the period before introduction of section 2(A) of Services Tribunals Act, 1973, therefore, if a person was not a civil servant within the meaning of Civil Servants Act, he could not avail of the remedy provided under Services Tribunals Act; 1973. It was also observed that for persons convered by section 2A, they should also come within the definition of Civil Servant as defined under Civil Servants Act. This decision was given in the above background. The facts of the present case are quite different from the said case as the applicant was already in service of the corporation, when section 2-A was inserted in Service Tribunal Act, 1973. The other two authorities quoted by the Advocate for the applicants are based upon the above-mentioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The provision of, section 2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 was also interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as Syed Aftab Ahmad and others v. KESC and others (1999 SCMR 197) and it has been observed as under:-- "A perusal of the above quoted newly enacted section 2-A indicates that the service under any Authority, Corporation, Body or Organization established by or under a Federal law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has a controlling share or interest has been declared to be service of Pakistan. It has also been provided that every person holding a post under any such authority, corporation, body or organization shall be deemed to be in civil service for the purposes of this Act, i.e., the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. In our view, it is not necessary for an employee working in any of the Organizations covered by section 2-A that he should also come within the ambit of definition of the 'civil servant' given in section 2(b) of the Act of 1973. The employees of the various Authorities, Corporation etc., mentioned in section 2-A have been treated in the service of Pakistan of or limited purpose for providing remedy by way of appeal to them against an order of which they may feel aggrieved . In a recent judgment reported as Zahir Ullah and 13 others v. Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and others (2000 SCMR 826), decided by the Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, while interpreting section 2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, it has been observed as follows:-- "The above view taken by the learned Tribunal does not appear to be correct as section 2-A which was inserted in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, by its own force, created a class of Government servants by fiction, for the purpose of allowing them to avail remedy of appeal before the learned Service Tribunal. Section 2-A ibid while providing that the service under any authority, corporation, body or organization established by or under a Federal law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has a controlling share of interest is declared to be the service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under such corporation or organization shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purpose of Service Tribunals Act, does not make any differentiation between the employee working in such organization either as a regular employee or contract employees or workmen. We are, therefore, of the view that as the appellants were covered by the provisions of section 2-A for the purposes of availing remedy before the Service Tribunal. The fact that they were employed in the organization/corporation on contract basis, could not disentitle them to the remedy of appeal which became available to them on incorporation of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Kot Addu Power Company Limited v. Muhammad Bashir (2001 SCMR 1898). The learned Advocate for the applicant has argued that the words holding a post under such authority etc, appearing in the second part of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 refers to the persons who are holding any post under such authority etc., but when a person retires from the post he ceased to hold any post under that authority, therefore, the applicant after retirement ceased to be civil servants. The arguments has go no force in view of definition of Civil Servant as defined in section 2(a) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 which reads as under:-- 2[(a) 'Civil servant' means a person who is, or has been, a civil servant within the meanings of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 (LXXI of 1973) (and shall include a person declared to be a civil servant under section 2A; and] Under this definition a person who is or has been (1) a Civil Servant within the meaning of Civil Servants Act, 1973, (LXXI of 1973) and (2) a person declared to be Civil Servant under section 2-A has been made Civil Servant for the purpose of availing benefit under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The applicant is coming within the above definition of Civil Servant as he has been in the service of respondents. For the reasons discussed above, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, the revision application No.57 of 2002 is dismissed. S.A.K./A-423/K Revision dismissed,