1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS))

HAMZO KHAN M. KURESHI (CHAIRMAN).‑The preliminary objection raised at the time of admission of this appeal was whether the appellant is a "Civil Servant" as defined in Sind Service Tribunals Act. The Civil Servant is defined as under:‑ "Section 2(a).`Civil Servant' means a person who, is or has been a member of the Civil Service of the Province or, holds or has held a civil post in connection with affairs of the Province and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Act includes a person who is or has been, dismissed, discharged, removed or retired from such service or post as a consequence of the order of the departmental authority, but does not include . . . . . . . . . ." The material facts for the decision of this appeal are that the appellant was appointed as a work‑charge Mistry with effect from 16‑8‑1965 by the District Engineer, District Council, Karachi. On 5‑7‑1969 he was promoted as Overseer and transferred to Landhi Korangi Municipality, Karachi. He appears to have been transferred to Nawabshah as Overseer, District Council, Nawabshah. The said transfer order was passed on 24‑2‑1973. Thereafter the appellant was transferred to the Engineering Department, Karachi Municipal Corporation as an Overseer. While serving there the appellant's services were dispensed with immediate effect which gave him the cause of action to file the present appeal. Admittedly he was in the service of Karachi Municipal Corporation when his services were dispensed with on 23‑4‑1974. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General has opposed the admission of the appeal and has referred us to the following authorities with which we are in respectful agreement :‑ (1) Jamlin v. Hannaford (1950) 1 K B D 18.‑It lays down that "Minister (Transport) having powers over the Corporation as great as a man who holds all the share in a private company. It is the Minister who appoints Director, members of the Corporation, fixed their remunera tion and gives direction. It was held that these are great powers yet the Minister was not its agent. The corporation is its own master and is answerable as any person or corporation as juristic person. It's neither a crown nor has the privilege of a crown. It's servants are not Civil Servants". (2) Mohammad Ali v. Commissioner, Lahore (1962) P C S R 173."In certain contingencies Provincial‑‑Government may appoint or suspend or remove from the office and is subject to their supervisory jurisdiction like the committee itself. But the relationship of the employer and employee was not lost. Even where Government appoints Executive Officers, it is for the benefit of the committee who is the paymaster". (3) Kishorilal v. Punjab A I R 1958 Pb. 402.‑"The status is to be decided according to the functions performed whether they are relating to Municipal Committee or Government". (4) Allahbux v. District Board P L D 1951 Lah. 52.‑"Original employee of Municipal Committee‑employed in District Board was discharged after envolved in criminal misappropriation was held to be not a Civil Servant". (5) Mohammad Ali v. Commissioner P L D 1960 Lah. 641.‑Municipal employee was held not to be Civil Servant. (6) Ghulam Mohiuddin v. K. P. T. P L D 1957 Kar. 482.‑This ease a servant of the K. P. T. was held not to be a Civil Servant. (7) P L D 1972 Lah. 316.‑Employee of Municipal Corporation was held not to be employee of Government. (8) P L D 1971 Lah, 748."P. I. A. Employee of statutory body was not the servant of the Government". (9) 1970 S C M R 40.‑WAPDA Employees not entitled to statutory protection of Civil Servant". (10) 1971 S C M R 560.‑"Employee of statutory corporation does not acquire status of Government Servant no guarantees given by Constitution." (11) P L D 1970 Lah. 195.‑"Government competent to frame terms and conditions and can transfer but the employees do not become Government Servants". (12) P L D 1967 Lah. 1251."This authority discussed in detail as to who is or is not civil servant." (13) 1972 P L C 624‑P L D 1973 Note 112 lays down the 4 requisites for deciding whether the employee is a civil servant or not. In view of the above quoted overwhelming authorities the argument of the learned Advocate of the appellant does not bold water that the appellant was a Civil Servant because the impugned order was passed by the important officers of the Provincial Government. The material question is what was the position of the appellant when he was recruited and when he was removed from service. It is also a material point whether be was paid his salary from the funds of the local bodies where he was posted or from Provincial budget. No order or Notification has been produced before us to the effect that the appellant was actually absorbed in the Government department prior to the termination of his service. Local Council Board is different from the Secretary Housing Planning and Local Government Department. Order Annexure `J' filed by the appellant does not show that the appellant was absorbed in the Government service. This order was passed by the Secretary, Local Council Board. It has been clearly established that the appellant was an employee of a "Local Body" viz. Landhi Korangi Municipality, District Council, Nawabshah or Karachi Municipal Corporation, irrespective of the fact whether the controlling authority was the Government or not. In the final analysis o such matters the Government is admittedly final authority to run such corporations in accordance with the laws and rules framed specifically for such establishments but the employees of those establishments do not thereby is become Civil Servants. We therefore hold that the appellant is not a Civil Servant within the definition of the section 2(a) of the Sind Service Tribunals Act. The appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. Since the appeal fails on the preliminary point of jurisdiction, we do not find it necessary to go into its merits.