1977 PLP [C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN ORDNANCE FACTORY, WAH
| Citation | 1977 PLP [C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | 1977 P L C C. S. T. 96 |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Daud Khan, Chairman and G. D. Memon, Member |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN ORDNANCE FACTORY, WAH |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP [C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP [C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the 1977 P L C C. S. T. 96 bench comprising: Muhammad Daud Khan, Chairman and G. D. Memon, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP [C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN ORDNANCE FACTORY, WAH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑ ‑‑ S. 2(1) (b) and service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Ss. 2(a) & 4(1)‑Appeal‑‑Jurisdiction of Tribunal‑Appellant (Foreman in Ordnance Factory) employed in a manufacturing process‑‑Not a civil servant but a workman‑‑Not within jurisdiction of Tribunal Factories Act (XXV of 1934), S. 2(h). (b) Civil servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑ ‑‑ S. 2(1)(b) and Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Ss. 2(a) & 4i)‑ Appellant not a civil servant but a workman‑Mere fact that he was dealt ‑with under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 ‑‑Cannot be interpreted to mean that he was a civil servant for purposes of appeal before Service Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN (CHAIRMAN) The appellant, a Foreman in the Ordnance Factories, while serving in East Pakistan, was taken 'prisoner of war' during the Indo Pakistan conflict and repatriated on 4‑1‑1974. He was granted leave for two months, with pay. As a result of certain investigations, he was called upon to tender explanation in regard to the allegations made against him. Consequent upon these proceedings, he was removed iron service with effect from 1‑3‑1976. The appeal preferred, teas rejected by the competent authority, vide order dated the 13th April, 1976. The present appal before the Tribunal is against the aforesaid order of removal from service. The point for determination is whether the petitioner is a 'civil servant'. It is admitted that the petitioner is a Foreman in the Ordnance Factories That being so, he is a person employed in a manufacturing process or in cleaning parts of the machinery and/or in some kind of work incidental to and/or connected with the subject of the manufacturing process in the Ordnance Factories. He is therefore, a "worker" within the meaning of section 2 (h) of the Factories Act, '
934. Consequently, he is not a "civil servant" as defined under section 2(a) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, read with section 2(t) (b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The fact that he is a Government Servant and is dealt with under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules would not be interpret ed to mean that he is a 'civil servant' which expression for the purpose of preferring an appeal before the Tribunal is defined in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 arid the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The contention put forward by tire learned counsel is untenable. As rte is not a 'civil servant' no appeal would lie to the Tribunal ride section 4 (1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The appeal not being entertain able, is dismissed in limine.