' JUSTICE (RETD.) ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH (CHAIRMAN).---By this single order we propose to dispose of the above two titled appeals which involve common questions of law and facts and were by consent of the parties counsel heard together.
2. In appeal No,218/2002 appellant seeking declaration that respondents may be directed not to act contrary to the provisions of law of Hamdard University Act and Statutes, they be restrained from interfering with the exercise of powers, privileges and functions of appellant granted to him, that appellant may be declared as an employee of Grade-10 of the University and he may be declared as senior-most Professor of the University, etc. In appeal No,69/2003 the appellant has prayed that the order dated 28-12-2002 demoting him from pay scale No,9 to Associate Professor in pay scale No,8 and order dated 7-1-2003 terminating his services may be declared to be illegal, void and without lawful authority.
3. The office raised objection to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that appellant is not a Civil Servant within the meaning of Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, but is an employee of a Private University.
4. Pre-admission notice was issued to learned Asst .A.G. And respondent No,1 only. In response thereof, respondent No,1 filed preliminary objections to the maintainability of appeal so also filed comments on the above appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that appellant is an employee of Hamdard University which was established by a Provincial enactment i,e, Sindh Act No,1 VI of 1992, therefore, in view of section 2 (aa) read with section 3-E inserted by Sindh Act XXXXI of 1994 in the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (Sindh Act No,XV of 1973), the appellant is a "Civil Servant" for the purpose of filing appeal before this Tribunal relating to terms and conditions of his service as such, this Tribunal enjoys plenary powers to entertain, proceed and decide the appeal on merits.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No,1 controverted the above submissions and contended that Hamdard University is a private University for all purposes and intents and it is neither under the control of Government nor the Government has any share or interest in the affairs of respondent University and that the services of the respondent University were not declared as the service of the Province. Besides, he submitted that there was no original or final order passed against the appellant to bring him within the orbit of jurisdiction of this Tribunal. He averred that prior to the filing of instant appeal the appellant had filed before the Honourable High Court of Sindh, Karachi, a writ of quo warranto against respondents Nos.2 to 4, but it was dismissed in limine which fact has been suppressed by the appellant and palpably he came with unclean hands before this Tribunal and is, therefore, not entitled for any relief. He also urged that in appeal No,69/2003 appellant has challenged two orders of distinct nature, as such, the appeal on this ground also is not maintainable.
7. Learned Asst.A.-G. Adopted the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent No,1 and prayed for dismissal of appeal being not maintainable.
8. We have considered the above submissions, perused the case papers and have gone through the relevant law and the case referred to by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to section 2 (aa) and 3-E inserted in Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, through Sindh Act No,XXXI of 1994, which reads as under; "2 (aa) "Corporation" means a Corporation or institution set up_ or established by a Provincial enactment."
"3-E. Employee of a Corporation be deemed Civil Servant:-- ' Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, service of Corporation is hereby declared to be the service of the Province and every person holding a post in the Corporation, not being a person who is on deputation to the Corporation shall, for the purpose of this Act be deemed to be a civil servant."
' Although, the Hamdard University was established by a Provincial enactment i,e, Sindh Act No,VI of 1992 promulgated on 22-2-1992, yet this absolutely a private institution having no control, share or interest of the Government, except that the Governor of Sindh, shall be the patrpn of the University.
None of its employee is a member of civil service of the Province nor the service of the University has ever been declared to be the service of the Province.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the definition of the word "Corporation" as accruing in section 2 (aa) above, means any Corporation or Institution set-up or established by a provincial enactment, irrespective of the fact whether it is privately managed corporation/institution or being controlled by the Government. The interpretation of learned counsel for the appellant seems to be not correct. From the whole scheme of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973, and the conjunctive reading of section 2 (aa) and 3-E of the said Act reproduced above, would show that the intention of the legislature was to provide forum to the employees of the Corporations/Institutions set-up or established by the Provincial enactment, owned or controlled by the Provincial Government and not to the employees of the privately managed Corporation/Institution. It is settled law that if the words of a statute are ambiguous, the Court would be justified in construing the words in a manner which will make the provision purposeful and un-ambiguous. Reference is invited to the case of Shaikh Saeed Ahmed and another v. Abdul Wahid, 1990 SCMR 2569.
11. In another case of Amin Akhtar Jami v. Jehangir Alam, 1993 M LD 1530, it wds observed that, a definition clause in a statute, however, comprehensive in nature, is usually to be read subject to context and if the context so requires that the defined word may be accorded a different meaning than what is occurring in the definition. Similar was the view taken in the case of Muhammad Haider Zaidi and others v. Abdul Hafeez and others, 1991 SCM R 1699, wherein it was observed that, a definition clause in a statute is of a declaratory nature though normally the definitions provided for in the definition clause are to be read into the provisions of the Act while interpreting the defined terms/words, but if the contents of the provisions of the Act indicate otherwise, the definition clause cannot override a main provision of the statute.
12. We are of view that if the meaning of 'Corporation' as given by learned counsel for the appellant, is accepted, it will manifestly frustrate the object of law. We may re-iterate that while interpreting the provisions of a statute no such construction should be placed which might run counter the object of the law or to render a provision of a statute redundant. The Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, was enacted to provide forum to the civil servant of the Province for redressal of their grievance concerning terms and conditions of their service. It is settled law that Courts to lean towards the purposive interpretation of the statutes and for that purpose the forum is not material, but the substance of law is to be seen. It has also been held that the definitions given in a particular statute are declaratory of the intention of legislature, pertaining to the connotation and scope of the terms and expressions used in a particular enactment.
13. The definition of term "Corporation" as mentioned in section 2(aa) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 refers to those Corporations/Institution which are owned or controlled by the Government and not the privately managed corporations/institutions although established/set up by a Provincial enactment. The fact that Hamdard University is a private institution further find supports from Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Ordinance, 2001 promulgated on 5-1-2002 read with amendment Ordinance No,XXXVIII of 2002 wherein it has specifically been mentioned that Hamdard University, Ziauddin Medical University, etc. Are private Universities.
14. For the aforesaid reasons and the case-law, we are of the firm View that the intention of the legislature as it appears from the whole scheme of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is clear that only the employees of the Corporations/Institutions which are being controlled by the Government or the Government has any interest/share in them, have been provided forum to approach this Tribunal for redressal of the grievances touching the terms and conditions of their service and have been declared as Civil Servants only for the purpose of filing appeal before this Tribunal.
15. Accordingly, the appeals being incompetent and beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, are hereby dismissed in limine.
(Above are the reasons of our short order dated 7-7-2005, whereby these appeals were dismissed in limine.)