' HAFIZ ABDUR REHMAN ANSARI (CHAIRMAN).--- The appellant Irrigation Department has called in question order dated 10-9-2009 passed by Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan.
2. The brief facts of instant appeal are that Muhammad Arif son of Muhammad Ameer was working in Irrigation Department as Beldar/Chowkidar on work-charge basis. He filed Grievance Petition before Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan under section 46 of Industrial Relation Ordinance, 2002, for regularization of his service. The appellant filed written statement on 4-4-2009 and took the stand that Muhammad Arif was working on work-charge basis and there is no regular post of Beldar/Chowkidar in the department at Binda Rest House. It was further took the defence by the department that during the service of the respondent/ Muhammad Arif, selection of Beldars/Chowkidars were made by the department from time to time. But he did not take any interest to join interview for regular appointment. The department further took the stands that respondent in the instant appeal was not regular employee. He cannot be considered as a civil servant.
3. During the trial of Grievance Petition, the respondent Muhammad Arif expired on 14-6-2009 leaving behind four sons and two A daughters and one widow. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Muhammad Arif before the Labour Court recorded his statement which is reproduced as under:--- "Statement of Syed Hamid Hassan Pirzada advocate learned counsel for the petitioner without oath. The petitioner has died on 14-6-2009 after his appearance before this court on 12-6-2009 leaving behind four sons, two daughters and one widow who have no source of income, so the petition may kindly be disposed of with the issuance of direction to the respondents to make appointment of adult son of the deceased petitioner as baildar/chowkidar."
4. After recording statement of Learned Counsel for respondent Learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court passed order dated 10-9-2009 which is reproduced below:- "In view of the death of the petitioner the grievance petition stands disposed of with the direction to Irrigation Shujabad Canal Division Multan to consider the application of Allah Ditta son of Muhammad Arif deceased petitioner under humanitarian ground under Rules 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 the file be consigned to the record room".
5. -The Department has assailed this order dated 10-9-2009 by filling instant appeal which is also time barred.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that Muhammad Arif (deceased) was not civil servant. He was not regular employee of Irrigation Department. The impugned order dated 10- 9-2009 is void order and no limitation runs against void order. Learned Presiding Officer Labour Court No,9, Multan cannot exercise his powers under Civil Servant Act, 1974 or under Rule 17-A of Civil Servant Appointment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1974. Powers under section Civil Servant Act, 1974 or under Rule 17-A of Civil Servant (Appointment and Conditions) of Service Rules, 1974 can only be exercised by Punjab Service Tribunal if the matters pertains to Provincial Service or by Federal Service Tribunal, if the service matter relates to Federation of Pakistan.
7. During the hearing of the appeal Allah Ditta elder son of Muhammad Aril (deceased) was impleaded as respondent as Learned Presiding Officer Labour Court No,9, Multan had passed an order for appointments of Allah Ditta son of Muhammad Arif under section 17-A of Civil Servant Act, 1974 or under Rule 17-A of Civil Servant (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974.
8. I have heard the parties at length.
9. This Court fully agree with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant that powers under Civil Servant Act, 1974 or under Rule 17-A of Civil Servant (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 are solely vested in the Punjab Service Tribunal or the Federal Service Tribunal.
Order dated 10-9-2009 passed by Labour Court No,9, Multan, in my opinion is wholly without jurisdiction and is coram non-judice. No limitation runs against the void Order which is coram, non- judice. Safe reliance can be placed as such:---
(i) PLD 2008 SC 663 titled as Moulana Atta-ur-Rehman v. Al-Haji Sardar Umar Farooq and others.
(ii) 2007 SCMR 459 titled as Province of the Punjab through Secretary Settlement and Rehabilitation Department, Lahore v. Akhtar Ali Khan.
(iii) PLD 2001 SC 514 titled as Land Acquisition Collector, Nowshera and others v. Sarfraz Khan and others.
(iv) 2007 SCMR 262 titled as Evacuee Trust Property Board and others v. Mst. Sakina Bibi and others.
(v) PLD 1974 Lahore 434 titled as Syed Nazir Hassan v. Settlement Commissioner, Lyallpur. vi. 1986 SCMR 962 titled as Mst. Rehmat Bibi and others v. Punnu Khan and others.
10. In all these judgments, it is held if the judgment/order is without jurisdiction, coram non-judice, limitation does not run against such void order. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court cannot exercise power under Civil Servant Act, 1974 or under Rule 17-A of Civil Servant (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974.
11. The Civil Servant is defined in clause 2(b) of Civil Servants Act, 1974.
(b) "Civil Servant" means a person who is a member of a civil service of the Province or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province, but does not include---
(I) A person who is on deputation to the Province from the Federation or any other Province or authority;
(II) A person who is employed on contract or on work-charged basis, or who is paid from contingencies, or
(III) A person who is a 'worker' or 'workman' as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934) or the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923):
12. In the said definition employee on work-charge basis is excluded from the definition of Civil Servant under section 17-A of Civil Servant (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. If the Civil Servant dies during his service. His adult son can be employed in the Civil Service.
According to above mentioned definition of Civil Servant, Muhammad Arif (deceased) was not Civil Servant. He was working as Chowkidar on work-charge basis. His son cannot be benefited from the Provision of Rule 17-A of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service ) Rules, 1974.
The said Rule 17-A of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 is reproduced as under:--- "Notwithstanding anything contained in any rule to the contrary, whenever a civil servant dies while in service or is declared invalidated/incapacitated for further service, one of his unemployed children may be employed by the Appointing Authority against a post to be filled under rules 16 and 17 for which he/ she possesses the prescribed qualification and experience and such child may be given 10 additional marks in the aggregate by the Public Service Commission or by the appropriate Selection Board or committee provided he/she otherwise qualifies in the test/examination 'and/or interview of posts in BS-6 and above; Provided further that one child of a Government servant who dies while in service or is declared invalidated/in-capacitated for further service shall be provided a job against posts in BS-1 to 5 in the department in which the deceased Government servant wasworking, without observance of formalities prescribed under the rules/procedure; Provided such child is otherwise eligible for the post)."
13. The powers of Labour Court are mentioned in section 37 of Punjab Industrial Relation Act, 2010 or in earlier enactments relating to Labour Laws. In the Civil Servants Act, 1974 or under Rule 17-A of Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 Labour Court does not figure anywhere. In my opinion powers exercised by Presiding Officer Labour Court No,9, Multan, under Civil Servants Act, 1974 or under Rules thereunder is without jurisdiction and as such order dated 10- 9-2009 on humanitarian ground is nullity in the eyes of law. Court is bound to decide and adjudicate the matter within parameters prescribed by law. I fully agree with the arguments of the appellant that limitation does not run against the void order. If there is any delay in filing the appeal against the impugned void order that will not hit instant appeal. In the light of above discussion this appeal is allowed and order dated 10-9-2009 is hereby struck down.
14. However, it is brought to the knowledge of this Court that adult son Allah Ditta son of Muhammad Arif was employed in the Irrigation Department on work- charge basis who has filed Grievance petition for regularization of his service the same be deemed not appointed in compliance of order dated 10-9-2009 passed by Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No,9, Multan. This appointment of Allah Ditta son of Arif on work-charge basis be deemed independent of order dated 10-9-2009. Grievance petition be proceeded in accordance with law.
15. This appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.