The decision dated 25-1-1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad has been called in question in this appeal.
2. The services of the appellant were terminated and he challenged the order of termination before the learned lower court. The ,appellant, not being a deputationist from the Central or Provincial Government, is a civil servant by virtue of section 17 (1-B) of WAPDA Act and this court has no jurisdiction. The controversy on the point has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in `F. U. Malik v.
WAPDA'(Civil Appeals No. 163/R of 1982, decided on 5-12-1982) wherein it has been held that all WAPDA employees are, for the purposes of Services Tribunals Act, civil servants. The observations made read as under :- ---We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and find that there could be no plausible excuse for the petitioner to have not availed of his right as a Government Servant under the West Pakistan Water & Power Development Authority Act, 1958 (West Pakistan Act No. XXXI of 1959) because .All the employees of the Authority are `civil servants' as relevant clause of the aforesaid Act, as amended, reads as under :- It has been further observed by the Supreme Court :- "We agree with the finding of the learned Service Tribunal that the petitioner holding very responsible post of Senior Budget & Accounts Officer should have been aware of the provisions of section 17 (1-B) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, as amended, and that the petitioner was rightly refused the condonation of delay in filing his appeal."
Following the above-mentioned authority I hold that the appellant is a civil servant .And this tribunal -has, therefore, no jurisdiction. The memorandum of appeal is directed to be returned to