These nine appeals (LATAB No. 22/81 (D.1 Said v. Chairman, WAPDA etc., 19/81 Riaz Ahmad V.
Chairman WAPDA etc.), 20/81 (Purdil Khan v. Chairman WAPDA etc.), 21/81 (Sabz Ali son of Khaliq Dad v. Chairman WAPDA etc., 23/81 (Sabz Ali son of Mohibullah v. Chairman WAPDA etc.), 24/81 (laved Ahmad v. Chairman WAPDA etc.), 25/81 (Bakhtiar Shah v. Chairman WAPDA etc.), 26/81 (Ziauddin v. Chairman WAPDA etc.), and 27/81-- Jamal Shah v. Chairman WAPDA etc.), are being disposed of by this single judgment for the reason that they arise out of a consolidated order dated 29-1-1981 of the Labour Court, Peshawar and also for, that a common question of law involving the jurisdiction of the Labour Court over the matters has to be determined. All the nine appellants are employed as work-charged Patwaris by WAPDA who approached the Labour Court for issuance of a direction to the respondents 'to treat them as permanent Patwaris in. View of the provisions of West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. WAPDA the employer, contested the petitions and took the stand that the petitioners in view of Ordinance No. XVI of 1975 which has added (IB) to section 17 of West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act No. XXXI of 1958 are Civil Servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and as such the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. The Labour Court after minutely vesting the authorities produced for and against the proposition arrived at the finding that it had no jurisdiction in the matter and ordered the return of the same to the petitioners for presenting these to the proper forum. Aggrieved of the said order they have approached this Tribunal by filing the present appeals.
2. To appreciate the controversy in its true perspective it would be advantageous to reproduce subsection (1-B) added to section 17 by Amend--ment Ordinance XVI of 1975 which later was made into Act LXXXIV of 1975 :- "(1-B) Service under the Authority is hereby declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under the Authority ,not being a person who is on deputation to the Authority from any Province, shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (LXX of 1973)."
It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants work- charged employees are not civil servants as defined in the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Service Tribunals Act, 1973 has adopt--ed the definition of civil servants as given in the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Following the principle of legislation by adoption the definition of civil ser--vants given in the Civil Servants Act has become part of Service Tribunals Act and it should so be treated for the purpose of Service Tribunals Act. The definition of civil servants excludes persons employed on work-charged basis and therefore the Tribunals under the Service Tribunals Act of 1973 have no jurisdiction and it is the Labour Court alone which is competent to adjudicate upon the matter. In another way the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in order to oust the jurisdiction of the Labour Court it must be shown that the appellants are civil servants as defined by the Civil Servants Act of 1973 which they are not, being employed on work-charged basis. In this regard reliance has been placed on a case reported as Muhammad Fayyaz v. WAPDA (1980 PLC 664) wherein the learned Chairman Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab has been pleased to hold that if an employee who is not a civil servant as defined by the Civil Servants Act of 1973, in his case, the Labour Court shall have the jurisdiction to grant him the relief. A few other cases were also cited at the bar but these cases are not with regard to the work-charged employees and do not directly deal with the matter before me. With profound respect I am not inclined to agree with the above-mentioned judgment of the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab for, the whole emphasis in that decision has been placed on the interpretation of definition of a civil servant given in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 while in my humble opinion the solution of the controversy depends upon true interpretation of section 17 (1-B) reproduced herebefore. Its minute and in depth reading would show that on the strength of a deeming clause every person holding a post under the authority (WAPDA) except deputationist from the government is made civil servant. There is no further condition imposed with regard to their eligibility to be civil servants. As such in view of the unambiguous legislation, the quali-- fications or restrictions contained in the definition of civil servants in Civil Servants Act, could not be directly attracted to the case of the Appellants. On the plain reading of the enacted provisions the restrictions of the defini--tion of a civil servant cannot be read into the deeming clause and therefore, appellants the work-charged employees had become by force of law civil servants over which the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. In this regard I am supported by an unreported judgment of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1670 of 1976.(WAPDA v. Muhammad Hussain) decided on 8-7-79. Moreover unlike the Civil Servants Tribunals Act which borrowed the definition of civil servants from the Civil Services Act, the WAPDA Act gives its own definition of a civil servant. WAPDA Act creates no exception and declares every person holding a post under the authority except those on deputation to it as civil servants for the purposes of the Services Tribunals Act. The definition of civil servant given in the WAPDA Act is independent of any definition of civil servant given in any other law and does not have to be tested by reference to any other law.
3. For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the view that the appellants are civil servants for the purposes of the Services Tribunals Act, as such, the Labour Court has correctly arrived at the finding that it had no jurisdiction in the matter. As a result all the appeals fail and they are dismissed with no order as to costs.