MUMTAZ AHMED, CHAIRMAN. In view of the order dated 12.9.2024, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court, GB in CPLA No.95/2024 and as well as order of the Hon'ble Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court, GB dated 17.4.2024 passed in C. Misc. No.252/2024, this chamber appeal has been preferred against the office order dated 28.3.2024, passed by the Registrar of Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal, whereby the Registrar of this Tribunal has returned the appeal for wants of jurisdiction.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that appellant Mr. Rehmat Nabi, Security Inspector WAPDA filed a Writ Petition, bearing No.21/2024, before the Hon'ble Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court, Gilgit, impugned the office order bearing No. Security/16202(39)/953-75 dated 28.12.2023, stating therein that appellant was initially appointed as Security Inspector on contractual basis vide office order dated 12.4.2018. Subsequently, the department vide office order dated 22.10.2020, the contractual services of appellant were regularized and placed the appellant on permanent footings, later on through an office order dated 28.12.2023 the respondents (WAPDA) retired him at the age of 55 years.
3. The Hon'ble Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court, Gilgit during the pendency of Writ Petition No. 21/2024, on the reconstitution/re-establishment of Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal, directed the appellant to approach the .relevant forum i.e. Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievances, if so desired and the writ petition stand abated.
4. On abatement of writ petition the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal on 27.2.2024 by way of filing service appeal, on examination by the Registrar office, the Registrar has returned the appeal of appellant for wants of jurisdiction vide order dated 28.3.2024 in following manner: - "The office of the Service Tribunal has meticulously scrutinized the case in hand: From perusal of record it reveals that the case in hand does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal as the Civil servants have been defined in section 2(b) of the Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal (Amended) Act, 2022 which is reproduced as under: -
(b) "Civil Servant" means a person who is or who has been a member of a civil service of Gilgit- Baltistan or holds or has held a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Gilgit-Baltistan bat does not include:
(i) A person who is or who has been on deputation to the Gilgit-Baltistan Government from the Federation or any other Province or authority;
(ii) A person who is or has been employed on contract, or on work-charged basis, or who is or has been paid from contingencies; or
(iii) A person who is or has been a 'worker' or 'Workman' as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934) or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923).
Therefore, the instant appeal is hereby returned for want of jurisdiction."
5. Upon returned of the appeal for wants of jurisdiction, the appellant again knocked the door of Hon'ble Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court, Gilgit by way of filing a Review Petition bearing No. 252/2024 in Writ Petition bearing No. 21/2024, with the following prayer:- "Review of judgement/order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the Honorable Divisional Bench in Writ Petition No. 21/2024 whereby this august Bench has directed the petitioner to approach the relevant forum i.e. Gilgit Baltistan Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievances if so desire, the petitioner approached to the relevant forum i.e. Service Tribunal but the Registrar of the said forum returned the service appeal of the petitioner by stating that the record of the case in hand does not fall within the jurisdiction of Service,. Tribunal and the said service appeal is hereby returned for want of jurisdiction. This petition is- for review of the order dated 20.03.2024 that this Hon'ble court mistakenly transferred the case of the petitioner to Gilgit Baltistan Service Tribunal which is against the rules of the Gilgit Baltistan Service Tribunal (Amended) Act, 2022.
In view of above mentioned facts and circumstances it is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to accept this petition by reviewing the impugned order dated 20.03.2024 as followed.
(a) Restore the Writ Petition No. 21/2024 for disposal on merits.
OR
(b) Direct the learned Registrar of Gilgit Baltistan Service Tribunal to fix the Service Appeal of the petitioner before the Hon'ble Chairman Service Tribunal for disposal on merits."
6. The Review Petition was heard by the Hon'ble Divisional Bench of Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court, Gilgit, and vide their order dated 17.4.2024, passed the following order: - "In view of above, this petition is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file Chamber appeal before the Chairman of GBST if aggrieved from the order of Registrar of GBST.
The instant petition along with C. Misc No. 253/2024.stands disposed of File Announced:- 17.04.2024 -sd- CHIEF JUDGE -sd- JUDGE"
7. The appellant feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied of the order passed by Divisional Bench of Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court, Gilgit, filed a CPLA No. 95/2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court, GB. The Hon'ble Chief Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court, GB vide order dated 12.9.2024, passed the following order: - "3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, when confronted that it would be appropriate that he should file chamber appeal before learned Chairman, G.B. Service Tribunal against Order of Registrar, G.B. Service Tribunal, he (learned counsel for petitioner) agreed thereto; therefore, instant CPLA is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to file chamber appeal against Order of Registrar G.B. Service Tribunal before learned Chairman, G.B. Service Tribunal, who shall dispose of the said chamber appeal strictly on merits.
4. With this observation, instant CPLA No. 95 of 2024 stands disposed of. -sd- Chief Judge"
8. In view of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court, GB dated 12.9.2024, this matter was placed before me for chamber hearing regarding the maintainability of the service appeal of the appellant (Rehmat Nabi) in view of the objection raised by the Registrar Service Tribunal vide his office order dated 28.3.2024, whereby he returned the appeal for wants for jurisdiction.
9. Learned counsel for appellant argued that the impugned order dated 28.3.2024 passed by the Registrar of this Hon'ble Tribunal is beyond the jurisdiction and beyond the imagination; submits that the order is against the equity and against the fundamental rights of appellant guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan as well as in contradiction of the rights enshrined in the Gilgit- Baltistan Order, 2018.
10. When the leaned counsel for the appellant confronted regarding whether the appellant's service falls within the purview of the definition enshrined in Section 2, Sub-clause (b) of Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2022 as well as defined in Section 2, Sub-clause (b) of the Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act, 2011. The learned counsel for the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory reply, thereby leaving unaddressed the said issue of whether the appellant's service is encompassed within the statutory definition; learned counsel submits that the impugned office' order of the Registrar of this Tribunal dated 28.3.2024 is against the law, facts and equity and the same may be required to set aside and the matter be placed before the bench for regular hearing regarding determination of terms and conditions of service of appellant.
11. Heard the learned counsel for appellant at length and gone through the record. The only question before me is, "whether the services of the appellant (Rehmat Nabi) falls within the meaning of the Gilgit Baltistan Service Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2022 as well as Gilgit Baltistan Civil Servants Act, 2011 as per definition given in Section 2 sub-clause (b)", to entertain and adjudicate the matter by this Tribunal. To reach at the right conclusion, I would like to reproduce the relevant provision of Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2022 and Gilgit Baltistan Civil Servants Act, 2011 for ready reference: - 1) Gilgit Baltistan Service Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2022 2(b). "Civil Servant" means a person who is or who has been a member of a civil service of Gilgit-Baltistan or holds or has held a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Gilgit- Baltistan but does not include..."
2) Gilgit Baltistan Civil Servants Act, 2011 2(b) "Civil Servant" means a person who is a member of a civil service of the Gilgit-Baltistan or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Gilgit-Baltistan, but does not include..."
12. To resolve this issue, I would like to address the question of jurisdiction of Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal to entertain the service appeal of the appellant under Section 5 of the Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2022.
13. In order to deal with this issue, it is mandatory to make reference of the scheme and framework of Water and Power Development Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as WAPDA Act). Under Section 3 of the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958 (WAPDA Act) was established, which is a body corporate, and the Federal Government has the power to issue directives as it may consider.
14. The service of the employees of the WAPDA has been regulated under the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, as per Chapter. IV, Establishment, wherein Section 17 of the said Act defines the employment of officer and servant and as per Section 17 Sub-clause (1-B) define the service of employees of WAPDA as under:- "I-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 purpose of Service Tribunal Act, 1973 (LXX of 1973)"
15. Meaning by the employees of WAPDA are governed by Section 17(1)b of WAPDA Act, 1958, which provides a special remedy to redress their grievances before the Federal Service Tribunal.
16. It was held by the Hon'ble Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, reported in "PLJ 2008 Tr.c (Services) 374", titled as "Humayun Akhtar and others v. Chairman WAPDA and others", that: i) Appeal pertaining to employees of water wing of WAPDA, who falls under the definition of "civil servant" are maintainable before the Service Tribunal subject to at all other just and legal exception. ii) Appeals pertaining to the terms and conditions employees of the power wing of WAPDA after their transfer and absorption in the WAPDA related companies are incompetent and liable to be dismissed. iii) Appeal against order passed under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, are competent before the before the Tribunal subject to other just and legal exceptions. iv) Appeals pertaining to a cause of grievance prior to incorporate of employees on such companies shall be competent subject to other just and legal exception."
The said judgement still hold field as the same has not been challenged or discussed by the Apex Court nor there is any judgement of the Apex Court declaring the employees of corporate companies WAPDA entitled for approaching the Federal Service Tribunal for their grievances.
17. In another case reported in "2013 SCMR 1707", wherein it has been held that statutory bodies having non-statutory service rules/rules of business cannot approach the High Court in writ jurisdiction nor in the Service Tribunal unless and until there is some statutory intervention, in view of case of "Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam v. Federation of Pakistan" reported in "PLD 006 SC 602" passed by a bench consisting of the Hon'ble 09 Judges.
18. One another case (unreported) passed by the Hon'ble Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court, Gilgit in W.P. No. 08/20418 along with C. Misc. No. 18/2018, titled as "Muhammad Din v. WAPDA through its Chairman and others", wherein it has been held that: - "Perusal of office order bearing No. SWHRWP/E-27/4426-29 dated 28.8.2011, shows that the appointing authority is Executive Engineer, Surface Water Hydrology, WAPDA having its office at CA-303, Satellite Town Rawalpindi. Thus, the appointing authority is out constitutional jurisdiction of this court and the petitioner may approach the proper forum for redressal of his grievances. Furthermore, in the light of judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in PLD 2019 SC 357, this court cannot issue any order/direction out of the jurisdiction of Gilgit-Baltistan"
In view of the above, the instant WP is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed accordingly. -sd- CHIEF JUDGE -sd- JUDGE"
19. It is an admitted fact that the respondents/officials of WAPDA Who are performing their functions in respect of affairs of Government of Pakistan and the organization is constituted under Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, which is purely creation of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan meaning by the respondents WAPDA have not been performing their function in respect of affairs under Gilgit-Baltistan Governance Order, 2018, not this so the terms and conditions given regarding the service of employees of Gilgit-Baltistan as enumerated in Section 2 Sub-clause (b) of the Civil Servants Act,-2011 and Gilgit Baltistan Service Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2022 does not cover the service of appellant. Hence, this Tribunal is of view that against authorities, institution, department, organization which are established under the authority of Government of Pakistan are not performing the functions under the Gilgit-Baltistan Governance Order, 2018. Moreover, this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear the cares of employees of Gilgit-Baltistan as defined in Section 2, Sub-clause (b) of the Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2022.
20. As per discussion above in view of the judgement of Apex Court and Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad and Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court, Gilgit, this Tribunal reach at the conclusion that the services of the employee of WAPDA are governed by Section 17(1)b of WAPDA Act, 1958 and service of employee of WAPDA does not cover-within the definition of civil servant as provided under Section 2, Sub-clause (b) of Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2022 as well as Section 2, Sub-clause (b) of the Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act, 2011, which are already reproduced supra and organization of WAPDA under WAPDA Act, 1958 is purely creation of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan of 1973, hence this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain such kind of matter.
In wake of above discussion, the chamber appeal in hand is hereby dismissed being meritless while maintained the order dated 28.3.2024 passed by the Registrar of this Tribunal in respect of returned the service appeal for wants of jurisdiction. The appellant is directed to approach proper forum as provided under the law, if so advised.