This is a revision petition against an order dated 30-4-1978 of Mr. Ayub Hassan, Addl. District Judge, Lahore maintaining the order of Mir Muhammad Afzal Civil Judge in which he held that the suit stood abated in view of the provisions of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
2. The case of the petitioners in the suit was that they were selected for undergoing a training of two years as apprentices draughtsmen at the P. W. R. Draughtsmen Training School, Lahore which was specially set up by the Administration and started functioning in 1964. They were paid during the period of their apprenticeship, stipend along with allowances and after successful completion of the training, they were absorbed in the permanent established cadre of Draughtsmen of the Railway and were entitled to further advancement according to their channel of promotion. The Railway employees, already in service, who possessed the stipulated qualifications were also eligible for selection as apprentice draughtsmen. The said Railway School was set up with the sanction of the Government of Pakistan with a view to overcome the acute shortage of technically trained Draughtsmen. It was then stated that the Vice, Chairman, P. W. R. Issued the impugned letter No. 831-E/132-IX (E. Policy)/803.E/115 (E.IV) dated 26-10-1972 laying down the revised rules for recruitment of Engineering Draughtsmen. This letter has deprived the plaintiffs of the status of Technically Trained Draughtsmen already conferred upon them by the Government of Pakistan (Railway Hoard) and treats them now as a separate entity and reduces the percentage of their absorption against permanent vacancies from 100 % to 50 % contrary to the terms and conditions of their service at the time of their recruitment. The channel of promotion now laid down relegates plaintiffs to lower grade and aligns them with the non-technically trained draughtsmen, the promotees. It is further stated that the plaintiffs were granted several promotions keeping in view their seniority and satisfactory work but they are now being reduced in rank to grade I and their future promotion hampered, reduced and jeopardised. Several grounds are given to challenge this letter.
3. During the pendency of the suit the Constitution of 1973 was enforced, Article 212 of which allows the setting up inter alia the Service Tribunals for hearing appeals against the departmental service cases. The Service Tribunals Act, 1973 was enforced along with Civil Servants Act in compliance with the provisions of the above Article. This Article excludes the jurisdiction of all Courts in matters over which the jurisdiction is conferred upon a Tribunal. Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 provides for appeals to Tribunal against a final order, whether original or appellate, made by a departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of the Civil servant's service within thirty days of the communication of such order to him or within six months of the establishment of the appropriate Tribunal, whichever is later. In some cases it is stated that the appeal shall not lie. The relevant provision in the present case is clause (b) that "no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal against an order or decision of a departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher grade".
4. Section 6 of the Act provides for abatement of the pending suits or appeals or applications inter alia before the civil Court. It provides that any party to such a suit, appeal or application may within ninety days of the establishment of the appropriate Tribunal, prefer an appeal to it in respect of any such matter which is in issue in such suit, appeal or application.
5. In view of the provision of section 6, the learned Civil Judge held the suit having abated by his order dated 13-61975 and this order as stated above was maintained in appeal.
6. The learned counsel argued that since the draughtsmen are workmen as defined in the Workmen's Compensation Act, they are not subject to the provisions of the Service Tribunals Act` 'Workman' as defined in that Act is a person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business) who is inter alia (i) a railway servant as defined in section 3 of the Railways Act, 1890, not permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub-divisional office of a railway and not employed In any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II.
7. In the present case it is not denied that the petitioners have been permanently employed in the Engineering Department Railways Headquarters Empress Road, Lahore. The word 'permanent' does not mean as the learned counsel would have me believe as relating to the employment of the employees as distinguished from temporary employment but only mean' permanently employed for the office as distinguished from the discharge of outdoor duties. In these circumstances a person who is permanently employed in any administrative district or sub-divisional office of a Railway is not a workman. The petitioners cannot, therefore, be considered to be workmen.
8. In this connection reliance was placed upon Saghir Ahmad v. Federa--tion of Pakistan (PLD 1976 Lah. 276) in which the draughtsmen were held to be workmen but that case is clearly distinguishable since in the present case it has been conceded that the petitioners are permanently employed in the Divisional Office. The matter raised in this case was, therefore, within the jurisdiction of the Services Tribunal.
9. There is no merit in this petition. It is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.