SH. HAKIM ALI, J. --- This judgment shall be dealing with the instant RFA as well as RFA No. 29/2003 (Muhammad lqbal v. Director General Plant Protection Department, Karachi, etc.) and RFA No. 30/2003 (Zulfiqar Ali v. Director General Plant Protection Department, Karachi, etc.) as the common questions of law and facts have arisen in all these appeals.
2. The brief facts of the cases are that all these appellants were employees of Plant Protection Department under the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Live Stock Department, Government of Pakistan as cleaner in scale No. 1 in the aforesaid department. All these appellants namely, Syed Shahid Hussain, Muhammad lqbal and Zulfiqar Ali were removed from the aforesaid service by the order of Deputy Director Admn. Department of Plant Protection, Karachi on one date i.e. 2.2.2001 by three different orders.
3. Aggrieved from that removal orders, the above- noted appellants gave the grievance notices under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance to the employer, which were not admitted so they filed grievance petitions before the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur. The learned Presiding Officer dismissed the petitions of above-noted appellants on 21.1.2003 by three different judgments/orders with the conclusion that appellants were civil servants in accordance with Section 2A of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973. So their grievance petitions were not competent before the Punjab Labour Court, as they had the remedy by filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal.
4. Aggrieved from that judgments/orders, all the three appellants have filed all these three appeals.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that addition of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunal Act of 1973 had not excluded or barred the jurisdiction of Punjab Labour Courts. The appellants who were admittedly cleaners working in the department were falling within the definition of "workman" as provided by Clause 28 of Schedule II of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. So they had rightly filed grievance petitions u/S. 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 before the Punjab Labour Court. The dismissal of their grievance petitions were illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel has quoted 1999 SCMR 197 (Syed Aftab Ahmad and others v. K.E.S.C. And others), 2003 P.L.C. (C.S.) 1335 (Sharif Hussain v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 4 others) and 2003 PLC 118 (Chief Mechanical Engineer, Locomotive Factory, Risalpur and two others v. Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal and another).
6. Opposing the contentions, the learned Standing Counsel for the Federal Government has replied that due to the addition of Section 2-A in the STA of 1973 all the employees of the departments have become civil servants by fiction and have been included within the definition of civil servants and therefore, they had got the remedy of appeal under STA. He has referred to 2000 SCMR 826 (Zaheer Ullah and 13 others v. Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and others).
7. In the present case, question has arisen with regard to the interpretation/construction of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973, which was added through Service Tribunal Amendment Act (XVII of 1997). For import of Section 2A, it requires re-production in the judgment, which is as follows:-- "2A........ 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 or 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."
8. In fact the learned Standing Counsel by relying upon 2000 SCMR 826 (Zahir Ullah and 13 others v.
Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and others) considered the addition of Section 2A in the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 as making all the employees of any authority, corporation, body or organization established by or under a federal law owned or controlled by a Federal Government to be the civil servants and thus excluded from the term of workmen, as envisaged by Clause 28 of Schedule-II of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and Clause (xxx) of Section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. In fact, Section 2A has been misconstrued and misunderstood on the basis of the citation of 2000 SCMR 826 (supra), which is being misapplied. The import of Section 2A of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 is that all the departments, authorities, organizations, bodies, corporations; which have been provided by Section 2A to be owned, controlled and established by Federal Government or under federal laws, the employees of those, were to be considered to include into the definition of civil servant. To determine as to whether . an employee is a workman or civil servant we have then to examine the definition of the word civil servant. In Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973, it has defined that the meaning of civil servant shall be of those which meanings have been provided by Civil Servants Act, 1973. To collect the meaning of civil servant from that Act, we have then to look forward to the Civil Servants Act, 1973 in which Clause (b) of Section 2, has provided the definition of "civil servant". After defining the meaning of a civil servant the three clauses have been provided by the aforesaid Section, which relates to those persons, who have not to be considered as civil servant and do not fall within its definition. Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 gives the meaning of a "worker" or "workman" to be of such person, who is defined in the Factories Act, 1934 (25 of 1934) or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923). This Section 2 clause (b) has clearly excluded the worker or workman from being considered as civil servant. Therefore, we have to revert to the definition, as provided by Factories Act, 1934 (25 of 1934) and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Keeping in view the above discussion, a person coming before a Labour Court, has to be seen as to whether that person falls within the definition of "civil servant" or "workman". Section 2A of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 cannot be considered or construed to have brought a workman within the definition, ambit or in the encompass of "civil servant". The citation of 2000 SCMR 826 has not annulled, cancelled or to have declared invalid, the definition provided by Section 2 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 for a civil servant, which has excluded the "workman" or Clause 28 of Schedule-II of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 or the Factories Act of 1934. The citation is being wrongly construed and applied by the respondents. The correct legal position is that a person, who is a workman as defined in the above-noted, two Acts (Workmen's Compensation Act of 1923 and the Factories Act of 1934) are to be treated workman and for those persons, appeal before Service Tribunal would not be competent, and they would have to file their grievance petitions under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 before the Labour Court. In this regard, I have got support of 1999 SCMR 197 (Syed Aftab Ahmed and others v. K.E.S.C. And others), 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1335 (Sharif Hussain v. Punjab Labour Tribunal, Lahore and 4 others) and 2003 PLC 118 (Chief Mechanical Engineer, Locomotive Factory, Risalpur and 2 others v. Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, NWFP, Peshawar and another). The present appellants being admittedly cleaner had clearly fallen within the definition of workman, so the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court was empowered to entertain their grievance petitions and to pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, the appeals are accepted and judgments of the learned Punjab Labour Court No. VIII are set aside.
Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court shall entertain and proceed with the grievance petitions of the appellants in accordance with law.
R.F.A. Allowed.