' This appeal by the Railway administration is directed against a decision of the learned VIIth Labour Court, given on 16th October, 1980, allowing the grievance petition of the respondent workman against the punishment of terminating his services and directing the Railway administration to re-instate the respondent in service with payment of back benefits. The ground which has weighed with the learned Labour Court in passing the aforesaid order is that though the services of the respondent are said to have been terminated on account of the commission by him of an act of misconduct, no domestic enquiry was admittedly held into the charges against him.
2. The relevant facts for the purposes of the decision of this appeal are that on 27th July, 1979, the respondent, who was then posted as Booking Clerk at Padidan Railway Station, in collaboration with the Assistant Station Master, Padidan, and the Guard, unlawfully had 5-UP and 7-UP ,stopped at Padidan, though there was no scheduled stoppage of these trains at Padidan, and unlawfully got loaded 290 and 142 packages respectively in the aforesaid 2 trains. The respondent was issued a show-cause notice, dated 27th August, 1979, in respect of these acts, to which the respondent submitted a reply, dated 1st September, 1979. As the explanation of the respondent to the show- cause notice was not considered satisfactory, the respondent was, imposed the penalty of removal from service with effect from 10th October, 1979, vide notice, dated 9th October, 1979. The respondent submitted an appeal as also a mercy petition to the Divisional Superintendent, but the same were unsuccessful. He thereupon preferred a grievance petition to the learned Labour Court which allowed the same as already stated.
3. I have heard Mr. S. M. Alvi, the learned counsel for the Railway administration and the respondent, who appeared in person. Mr. Alvi has assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court on the ground that it had no jurisdiction in the matter as the respondent is not a workman for the purposes of Labour Laws, but a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and the rules framed thereunder, including the Government Servants (Efficineny and 'Discipline) Rules, 1973, apply to him.
As already stated the respondent was employed at the relevant time as a booking clerk at the Padidan Railway station. He was, therefore, required to perform purely clerical duties. According to the definition of "Civil Servant", as contain in the Civil Servants Act, 1973, every person who is a member of all Pakistan services or a civil service of the Federation or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation is to be deemed to be a civil servant, except, (i) person on deputation to the Federation from a province or an authority; (ii) persons employed on contract or on worked-charge basis or paid from contingency; and (iii) a person who is a worker or workman as defined in the Fectories Act, 1934, or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It is an admitted position that the respondent is neither on deputation nor is employed on contract, work- charge basis or paid from contingency. He is also not a workman as defined in the Factories Act, as he was not employed in any manufacturing process or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises or any other kind of work incidental to or connected with the subject of the manufacturing process. He also cannot be deemed to be a workman for the _purposes of the Workmen's Compensations Acts, The was employed to Co urely clerical duties. In the case iv siona Superinten Pakistan an ailways, Karachi v. Nuzhat Sultana (Appeal No, KAR-685 of 1981), decided on 21st February, 1982, this Tribunal held relying on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Mufti Mushtaq Ahmad v. The Federation of Pakistan (I), that as Mrs. Nuzhat Sultana was employed as a Reservation Clerk, she was a civil servant and hence was not entitled to file or maintain a grievance petition against the termination of her services. Relying on that decision, I hold that the respondent is a civil servant and not a workman for the puropses of the Standing Orders and, consequently A he is not antitled to file or maintain a grievance petition against the termination of his services under the provision of clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25-A, I. R.
0. I would accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned decision. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1981 SC 172 {{FOOT NOTE}}