1. ' The respondent a Pump Driver posted at Power House, Durgai claims generation allowance. This kind of allowance was paid to the Pump Driver on the ground that duties of the Pump Drivers were the same as that of Tube-well Drivers. But on reference made to the Chief Engineer by the Resident Engineer (E) the former replied on 18th June, 1973 that the employment of the Pump-Drivers not belonging to generation cadre, they were not entitled to the said allowance. The respondent challenged the order in a petition under section 25-A. The petition was opposed and denying the entitlement of the Generation Allowance it was contended by the appellant that the petition was time-barred, that the respondent was not a workman, that the services of the appellant being declared as essential under the Essential Services Maintenance Act the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was barred and that as the respondent was employed at Durgai (Malakand) N.-W. F. P. The Labour Courts at Lahore had not territorial jurisdiction. The learned lower Court has not replied any of the above-mentioned legal objections.
2. ' The respondent is workman covered by the definition of workman given in section 2. (xxviii) of I. R.
3. O. As he does fall with the exceptions (a) and (b). The objection in this respect is, therefore, turned down.
4. By order, dated 18th June, 1973 it was clarified that Pump-drivers were not entitled to generation allowance, but the grievance petition was made on 9th August, 1977. This is not the case of the respondent that he made representation against the order, dated 18th June, 1973 as the same was rejected shortly before he made grievance petition. So, the petition was hopelessly time-barred.
5. ' The N. I. R. C. Has no power of adjudication of cases as held by the Supreme Court so even if the appellant's services had been declared as Essential Services the forum is the Labour Court only.
6. Moreover, no order or decision has been produced in support of the contention that WAPDA since has been declared as Essential Service, so the objection is without force and is disallowed.
7. The respondent admitted in cross-examination that he was posted in Malakand. He said that place is situated in N.-W. F. Province and not Punjab so the Labour Courts Lahore have no territorial jurisdiction. The objection is allowed.
8. ' On merits also the respondent has no case as there is no evidence that duties or functions of Pump Drivers and Tube-well Drivers are a like. Rather the respondent said in cross-examination that work of the Pump Drivers is different from the Tube-well Drivers. He stands non-suited by his own admission.
9. ' As upshot of the discussion made above I accept the appeal and setting aside the decision of the learned lower Court dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent.