SAGHIR AHMAD, J.--- Through this Labour Appeal Bashir Ahmad Rehmani, has assailed the order dated 16-42007 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8-Bahawalpur, whereby, his Grievance Petition was returned for lack of jurisdiction to entertain said petition, with an observation that appellant will be at liberty to seek remedy, if available, in accordance with law.
2. The case of the appellant is that during his service in Pakistan Railway, he was punished and vide order dated 4-4-1993 his three increments were withheld, which order, however, was set aside by the Federal Service Tribunal on 24-9-1998. In the meanwhile, however, the appellant was also not considered for promotion on the basis of earlier order dated 4-4-1993, and his juniors were promoted. The appellant was retired from service, whereas, after applied for proforma promotion as well as its pensionary benefits which request was also turned down. The appellant therefore, filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which however, vide order dated 11-122006 stood abated. After the order dated 11-12-2006 the appellant was forced to move the respondent/Punjab Labour Court No. 8-Bahawalpur and the said Court vide impugned order dated 16-4-2007 returned the appeal with the remarks noted in the opening paragraph of this judgment.
3. Now, without going deep into the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the respondent/Pakistan Railways at the very outset raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the instant appeal by arguing that the findings of the learned Punjab Labour Court are right in accordance with the latest rulings of the apex Court and that Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Grievance Petition of the appellant, as such, his petition was rightly returned for its presentation before the other forum, if available. The learned counsel for the respondent Pakistan Railways in this behalf has referred an unreported judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan rendered in C.P. Nos. 720 to 730 of 2006, dated 29-06-2006 as well as the case-law laid down in Muhammad ldrees v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others (2007 PLC (CS) 1332) to contend that appellant being employee of Pakistan Railways was a civil servant, thus best remedy available to him was before the Federal Service Tribunal, not the Labour Court, thus no illegality was committed by the Labour Court to return the petition of the appellant.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that no evidence has been recorded in order to find out the status of the appellant in order in invoke jurisdiction; that the impugned order of the Labour Court is perverse ; that Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 is applicable to the Railways employees; that in terms of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 the Railways workman has been declared as Industrial Establishment, as such the Labour Court committed illegality in throwing away the appeal on the point of jurisdiction.
5. Arguments considered. Record perused.
6. As mentioned above, the merits of the appeal are not being touched to avoid prejudice to any party at some point of time in future. However, the main thrust of learned counsel for the parties remained on the point of jurisdiction. So for as the first point of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to recording of evidence for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction is concerned, the same is not sustainable in law, as this is a mater settled by the apex Court once for all. Furthermore, the contention with regard to application of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 is concerned, this also is misconception on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant. Section 1(2) of I.R.O., 2002, reads as under:- it shall apply to all persons employed in any establishment or group of establishments or industry except those employed:---
(a) (b) In any installations or services exclusively connected with the Armed Forces of Pakistan including Ministry of Defence Lines of the Railways;"
"Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi v. National Industrial Relations Commission through Chairman and 2 others" (1997 PLC 207) and "Altaf Hussain v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, etc. (NLR 2002 Lahore 83). Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in an unreported judgment dated 29-6-2006 passed in CP. Nos. 720 to 730 of 2006 held as under:- "We are afraid the employees of railways department are governed by their own statutory rules, therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel may not be attracted to exclude them from the definition of civil servant."
Thus, there remains no cavil to the proposition that appellant also being an ex-employee of Pakistan Railways was governed by its statutory rules, thus the only remedy for him was to invoke the jurisdiction .Of the Federal Service Tribunal. On this very point, the apex Court in the case Muhammad ldrees v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others (2007 PLC (CS) 1332), held that:- "Service Tribunals Act, 1973 was ultra vires of Arts. 240 & 260 of the Constitution and unless services of an employee were governed by statutory rules he had no right to invoke jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal."
For what has been discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur was right in not invoking the jurisdiction as the appellant being Ex-employee of Pakistan Railways and connected with Ministry of Defence Lines, was a civil servant and the only remedy available to him is to invoke the jurisdiction of Federal Service Tribunal. This petition thus, is dismissed being devoid of any force. .