1. ' This appeal emerges from the decision, dated 3rd of November, 1980 delivered by the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court No, 1, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his re-instatement in service was accepted and he was directed to. Be re-instated as Line Superintendent with back benefits.
2. ' The respondent was a Line Superintendent and was reverted to the post of Lineman Grade I on the allegation that he had misused a Suzuki Pick-up for private journey covering a distance of 436 K.
3. Ms. He was given show-cause notice but without holding any enquiry, the reversion order was passed. The charge-sheet reads as under :- "You took out vehicle L. E. P. 381 to Chung area on 10th September, 1979 and used for 3 days till it was checked by the Transport Inspector near Niaz Beig. No entry was made in the Log Book which tantamounts to misuse of the vehicle. The vehicle was checked at meter reading 54165, whereas the last entry in the Log Book was 53729 thus causing a misuse of the vehicle upto 436 K. Ms. Which is recoverable as private journey in addition to disciplinary action to be taken under WAPDA Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 1960-78. If the above allegations are proved you will be guilty of the misuse of the WAPDA vehicle under the WAPDA employee (E & D) Rules, 1960.78 applicable to you and you will render yourself liable to all or any of the penalties prescribed therein."
4. ' It was revealed by the evidence that the line staff of the Construction Division cut the branches of the trees for the installation of electric poles and drawing electric lines and as a rule if any trees or branches intervene they have to be cut down and for this reason they cut the branches. The Forest Department got a case registered against the whole line staff working there with the result that they were arrester by the Police. The vehicle was used in order to secure the release of the arrested persons. This is noteworthy, that the charge is not that the vehicle was used without permission.
5. Since the vehicle covered 436 K. Ms. In excess action was taken against the respondent who had taken the vehicle.
6. ' The vehicle was found by the Inspector at Police Station, Chung, so most probably the police had used the Pick-up and thus the vehicle travelled in excess 436 K. Ms. In cases of misconduct making of enquiry is a most. It may be argued that since the punishment of dismissal was not awarded, charge-sheeting and holding of enquiry as required by the Order 15 (4) of the Standing Order Ordinance was not necessary but the provision of Order 12 (5) cannot be ignored which provides that in cases of misconduct, the procedure laid down in Order 15 (4) should be followed before taking any action. Since admittedly no enquiry was held the punishment of reversion was not legal.
7. ' It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that Standing Orders Ordinance is not applicable and that the respondent a civil servant. I have already held in many cases that Standing Orders Ordinance applies to WAPDA. Industrial establishments which are working under the authority of the Government and have statutory rules are exempted from the application of the Standing Orders Ordinance by the virtue of section 1 (4) (C) of the said Ordinance. WAPDA is an independent body working under the direct authority of the WAPDA Act and not under the authority of the Government. A statutory body working under the authority of a statute does not require the authority of any sovereign body. I have dealt with the point exhaustively in many cases and it may not be detailed in this judgment. The Government has retained certain powers of control over WAPDA but this is not sufficient to attract the provision of proviso to section 1 (4) (C) of the Standing order Ordinance. The Government has retained some control while enacting WAPDA Act.
8. 1958 because the Government has made investment and has given aid to WAPDA. Moreover, WAPDA supplies electricity to almost the whole of the Pakistan and Water Supplies is also based upon the electric energy supplied by WAPDA, therefore, it was necessary for the Government to have control over this establishment. I, therefore, hold that Standding Order Ordinance is applicable to WAPDA.
9. ' This is true that in section 17 (1) (B) of WAPDA Act of 1958, it is provided that all WAPDA employees will be deemed to be civil servants, but only those WAPDA employees are to be considered as civil servants who fall within the definition of the terms defined in section 2 of the Civil Servants Act of 1973. Suppose, a pigeon is to be deemed as a partrige, necessarily the former will be deemed to be that bird which according to its characteristics is actual a partrige. So, WAPDA employees cannot be deemed to be those employees who according to their characteristics cannot be by any stretch of imagination, called civil servants. Again since for the purposes of Services Tribunals Act WAPDA employees are to be deemed to be civil servant, it is all the more necessary that they should be deemed to be that kind of civil servants whose appeals Services Tribunals are competent to hear and decide. Needless to say that Services Tribunals can hear the appeals of only those civil servants who come within the purview of the definition of civil servants. If WAPDA authorities want to deem WAPDA employees as civil servant of a kind different from the ones which come within the definition of civil servant then the very purpose of during WAPDA employees as civil servants will stand defeated. There are certain exceptions in section 2 of the Civil Servants Act out of which one is that persons who are covered by the definition of `workmen' given in the Factory Act or in the Workmen's Compensation Act are not civil servant. The respondent was a Lineman at the time, he brought the grievance petition. According to section 2 (n) read with Schedule II (XIX) persons employed in the generating operation in and distribution of electrical energy are workman.
10. Needless to say that Lineman employed in the Electricity Department of WAPDA work in the transforming and supplying of electrical energy and, therefore, are covered by the definition of workman given in section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The respondent, therefore, comes within the exception of section 2 of the Civil Servants Act and thus is not a civil servant.
11. ' As a result of the observations made above I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.