' This judgment will dispose of the Labour Appeals Nos, 10 and 11 of 1984 as the common questions of law are involved.
' Muhammad Azeem was employed as Lineman in WAPDA at Mastung and was transferred to Khuzdar which he did not comply and made the order of transfer as grievance for the application filed by him under section 25-A Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and on the preliminary objection raised on behalf of WAPDA that the Labour Courts functioning under I.R.O. Have no jurisdiction to entertain the application and grant the relief, the Labour Court-III Quetta directed the return of the application to,be presented to the proper forum. The appellant Muhammad Azeem has challenged this order passed on 19-7-1984 in this appeal (L.A. No,10 of 1984).
' Saleh Muhammad was employed as Chokidar with WAPDA at its M&T Sub-Division No, 11(E), Quetta and his services were terminated on 26-1-1983. This termination order was challenged before the Presiding Officer 1st Labour Court, Quetta and the order was set aside and WAPDA authorities were directed to re-instate him with back benefits. The WAPDA authorities have challenged this order passed on 31-7-1984 in Labour Appeal No,11 of 1984. Since a common question of law involving the jurisdiction of the Labour Court over the matter has to be determined and this goes to the root of the cases the narration of facts in detail is not necessary.
2. My learned predecessor, late Mr. Justice Zakaullah Lodi had required the assistance of Mr. K.N.
Kohli, Advocate in Labour Appeal No,10 of 1984 as some questions of common interest were involved. I have also requested the, same Advocate to assist me in resolving the dispute as the respondent in Labour Appeal No,11 of 1984 had appeared in person and had no means to engage the counsel and I place on record the val..Able assistance rendered by Mr. K.N. Kohli, Advocate.
3. The learned counsel for the WAPDA authorities has laid stress on the provisions contained in subsections (1-A) and (1-B) added to section 17 of WAPDA Act, 1958. The provisions are reproduced:- "(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) or any rules made, or orders or instructions issued, by the authority, or in the terms and conditions of service of any person employed by, or serving under the Authority, the Authority may, at any time, remove from its service any person without assigning any reason, after giving him not less than thirty days' notice or pay for the period by which such notice falls short of thirty days.
(1-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 purposes of the Services Tribunals Act, 1973 (LXX of 1973)." ' lit is contended that since by means of section 17 (1-B) the service under the Authority has been declared to be Service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under the Authority shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (LXX of 1973) the employees have been made civil servants as such the Labour Court could not entertain the application under section 25-A, I.R.O. And the proper remedy for the petitioner was to move the service Tribunal for the redress of their grievances. Mr. K.N. Kohl! On the other hand submitted that in view of the repeal of subsection (1-C) of section 17 the Labour Courts have now been empowered to hear the application under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 and since the employees are workmen the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is not barred. This provision (1-C) of section 17 reads:- "(1-C) Any order of removal or termination of service passed by the Authority, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1-A), of section 17, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969), or the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 (LIIII of 1952), or.Under any law for the time being in force, before any Court, Tribunal, or Commission after the thirtieth day of September, 1975, and before the coming into force of the West Pakistan Water and -Power Development Authority (Amendment) Ordinance, 1979, setting aside or modifying or declaring any order of the authority to be void and of no effect, shall stand vacated."
4. There was a conflict of opinion on this point in the judgment of the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab and that of N.-W.F.P. As reported in 1984 PLC 5 and 1983 PLC 311, the Punjab view favoured the view advanced by Mr. K. N. Kohli while the view expressed in 1983 PLC 311 supported the contention of counsel for WAPDA. But the point now stands answered by a Division Bench of the Baluchistan High Court in Hari Kishan Dass v. Chairman, WAPDA PLD 1983 Quetta 61. The judgment was rendered by Abdul Qadeer Choudhry, J. And I was also a party to the judgment. To my knowledge this judgment has not so for been dissented from in any reported judgment of the High Court.
It has been pointed out in the above judgment that the repeal of subsection (1-C) from section 17 does not effect the force of subsection (1-A) and (1-B) and the later referred provisions were added because the Labour Courts were giving relief to the WAPDA employees. It has been held that an employee of WAPDA being a civil servant, if aggrieved by an order of the authority, could seek relief by approaching Services Tribunal and for this view the reliance was placed on some reported and unreported judgments of the superior Courts mentioned therein. The paramount consideration in legislating section 17(1-B) is to exclude the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.
' Mr. K.N. Kohli, Advocate has referred the same precedents relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in Hari Kishan Dass's case which have been considered in PLD 1983 Quetta 61. 1 feel myself bound by the judgment to which I was a party as a member of that Bench. Since I am of the opinion that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is barred in view of the provisions contained in section 17(1-B) the other contentions raised by Mr. K.N.Kohli about the merits of the orders passed by the WAPDA authorities challenged before the Labour Courts are not required to be considered.
Additionally the pleas raised in that connection would involve determination of disputed facts which can be undertaken only by the appropriate authority competent for the examination of the grievance.
' For the above reasons I uphold the orders of the Labour Court, dated 19-7-1984 impugned in Labour Appeal No, 10 of 1984 and set aside the order, dated 31-7-1984 impugned in Labour Appeal No, 11 of 1984. The Appeal No, 10 of 1984 is accordingly dismissed while the Appeal No, 11 of 1984 is accepted, but with no order as to costs.