This appeal arises from the decision dated 13th April, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that he was a civil servant and the Court had no jurisdiction.
The appellant was employed in the electricity department on 22nd June, 1948 and on the formation of WAPDA was transferred there. The parties failed to produce evidence on the point as to on what conditions the appellant was sent to WAPDA. If his services were transferred without retaining lien, he would be WAPDA's employee and not a deputations and if his lien was retained and was sent on deputation, he would not be a civil servant as section 17 (1-B) excludes the deputationists from the pale of civil servant. Both the learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the case may be remanded, so that they could produce relevant evidence for the decision of the point. I, accordingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned order of the learned lower Court, remand the case with the direction that after affording proper opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on the point of civil servant, the case be redecided.
2. I have heard Mr. Manzoor Ahmed Qazi for the applicant and Mr. Kamal Mansur Alam for the respondent. The learned Labour Court dismissed the application for non-prosecution, on 3rd April, 1983 refusing to allow the adjournment to the applicant on that date, on the ground that sufficient time had been allowed to the applicant for filing the affidavit in evidence. I find from the record of the case as well as the orders passed by the learned Presiding Officer on the Order Sheet that the application under section 25-A, I. R.
0. Had been fixed for regular hearing for the first time on 26th March, 1983 and, therefore, was adjourned on the application of the applicant only after seven days viz. 3rd April, 1983. On which date further application for adjournment was rejected and application dismissed for non-prosecution. It appears that the applicant was out of station as already prayed in the application for adjournment, on 26th March, 1983 had not returned to Karachi, and, therefore, his learned counsel appears to have made an application for adjournment on the same ground on 3rd April, 1983 which was disallowed by the learned Labour Court and the application under section 25-A, dismissed for non-prosecution. Thus, the time allowed by the learned Labour Court to the applicant for filing an affidavit in evidence does not appear to be reasonable in the circumstances of the case, to support the reason assigned in the order, rejecting the adjournment application and dismissing the case for non- prosecution. What I further find that on presentation of an application for restoration, on 24th April, 1983 by the applicant, the other side was not given a notice for hearing when the matter was adjourned to 26th April. 1983 on which date the impugned order was passed. In my view, the applicant was not afforded sufficient opportunity to file his affidavit in evidence to put forth his case before the learned Labour Court Mr. Kamal Mansur Alam, the learned counsel for the respondent has also agreed with me so far that aspect of the case is concerned.
3. The impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court is accordingly, set aside and the case is remanded to Labour Court for allowing a reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce their evidence and the dispose of the application filed under section 25-A, according to law. The revision application is allowed accordingly.