1. ' These two Labour Appeals No,4 of 1985 (Secretary to Government of Baluchistan Agriculture and Cooperative Department, Quetta and two others v. Habibur Rehman and Labour Appeal No,10 of 1985 Habibur Rehman v. Secretary to Government of Baluchistan Agriculture and Cooperative Department and two others are being disposed of by this single judgment for the reasons that they arise out of an order dated 31-12-1984 passed by the Presiding Officer, 1st Labour Court, Quetta in Application No,71 of 1983 filed by Habibur Rahman son of Abdul Subhan and a common question of law involving the jurisdiction of the Labour Court has to be determined.
2. Habibur Rehman was working as Mechanic in the Machinery Maintenance Workshop of Agriculture Department, a Government Department of Baluchistan and was proceeded with for misconduct and a show cause notice was issued by Agriculture Engineer, Quetta on 2-4-1983 and ultimately vide an order, dated 22nd June, 1983 and his services were terminated. After issuing a notice which he calls a grievance notice the application under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the I.R.O.) (No,71 of 1983) was filed on 10-9-1983 before the Presiding Officer 1st Labour Court, Quetta and the same has been disposed of vide decision, dated 31-12-1984 and the order of termination of service passed on 22-6-1983 has been set aside and a fresh enquiry has been ordered to be held under West Pakistan (Standing Orders)
2. Ordinance, 1968.
3. ' The Government has appealed because the standing orders Ordinance, 1968 has been held to be applicable to the case while Habibur Rehman has filed appeal because he is not happy with the fresh enquiry and withholding of back benefits made subject to the finding of the fresh enquiry.
4. ' The only point involved in both the appeals is whether Habibu Rehman was a Civil Servant and correctly dealt with under the Rule framed by the Government of Baluchistan or he is governed by the Standing Order Ordinance, 1968.
5. ' It is the case of the Government that vide a Notification No,SOA(I)/MMD/7-2/72, dated 4th August, 1977 the Governor Baluchistan has declared that the Machinery Maintenance Workshops wherever they may be located in the Province of Baluchistan shall be treated as Government Departments and all the employees of such departments will now be Governed by "The Baluchistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 and under this Act (Baluchistan Civil Servants Act, 1974) the Baluchistan Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1981 have been made under these Rules. The Agricultural Engineer, Quetta is authorised to act as Authority as well as authorised officer in respect of Civil Servants in Grade-I to 10 employed in the Agricultural Engineering Workshop, Quetta. The paramount consideration is to exclude the employees of that workshop from the jurisdiction of the Labour Court as permissible in view of the proviso contained in section 1 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
6. ' The argument of the learned counsel for Habibur Rehman is that in order to oust the jurisdiction of the Labour Court it must be shown that the appellant Habibur Rehman is a civil servant as defined by the Baluchistan Civil Servants Act. T9 appreciate the controversy in its true perspective it would be necessary to reproduce section 2 of the Baluchistan Civil Servants Act, 1974. The same reads:- Section 2. Definitions.-- (1)........................................................................................
7. (a)...................................................................................................................................
8. (b). "Civil servant means a person who is a member of a Civil Service of the Province of Baluchistan or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province, but does not include:-
(i) a person who is on deputation to the Province of Baluchistan from the Federation or from any other Province or authority; or
(ii) a person who is employed on contract or on work-charged basis or who is paid from contingencies; or
(iii) a peron who is a "worker" or "workman" as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934) or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923)".
9. ' An attempt has been made to show that Habibur Rehman is not a Civil Servant as defined in Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to grant the relief. Reliance was placed by Mr. Iftikhar Muhammad, the learned Counsel for Habib ur Rehman on Director Machinery Maintenance Department, Quetta v. Himmat Khan and 2 others 1980 PLC 7. With profound respect I am not inclined to agree with the judgment relied for, the whole emphasis in that decision has been placed on the interpretation of definition of a civil servant given in the Civil Servants Act, 1974.
10. While in my humble opinion the solution of the controversy depends upon the true interpretation of the Notification dated 4th August, 1977 which is reproduced:- "No, SOA(I)/MMD/7-2/72 as a result of regularisation of all contingent/Work-charged employees of the Machinery Maintenance Department Baluchistan, the Government of Baluchistan is pleased to declare that the Machinery Maintenance Workshops wherever these may be located in the Province of Baluchistan, shall be treated as "Government Department". All the employees of such department will now be governed by "the Baluchistan Civil Servants Act, 1974."
11. The minute reading of this notification would show that on the strength of deeming clause every person employed in the Machinery Maintenance Workshop is made a Civi Servant. There is no further condition imposed with regard to their eligibility to be Civil Servant as such the qualification or restrictions contained in the definition of Civil Servants in Civil Servant Act would not be directly attracted to the case of Habibur Rehman. On the plain reading of the Notification the restrictions of definition of a Civil Servant cannot be read into the deeming clause and, therefore, the appellant Habibur Rehman being employed in that workshop had become by force of law a civil servant over which the Labour Court shall have no jurisdiction. It cannot be said with any justification that Governor of Baluchistan is not competent under the law to issue the Notification.
12. ' The learned Advocate-General in the alternative has argued that Habibur Rehman is not a worker either under the Factories Act, 1934 or under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The worker as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 means a person employed, directly or through an agency, whether for wages or not, in any manufacturing process or premises used-for manufacturing process or in any way incidental to or connected with the subject of the manufacturing process.
13. Admittedly no manufacturing process is carried on in the Machinery Maintenance Department.
14. Habibur Rehman is therefore not covered with the definition of a worker as contained in the Factories Act, 1934 nor the workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The learned Advocate General in this connection has drawn my attention to the amount last drawn by Habibur Rehman and has placed on record a communication issued from the Agriculture Engineering Department to the Director Agriculture Engineering Department, Baluchistan wherein it is shown that Habibur Rehman has drawn a sum of Rs,1,058.40 per month. On this score also the provisions of (iii) of sub-clause (b) in section 2 of the Baluchistan Civil Servants Act is not applicable to Habibur Rehman's case and he is not a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
15. ' Since I have held that all the employees of Machinery Maintenance Workshop where Habibur Rehman was working have been made Civil Servants and Baluchistan Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules govern the employees, Habibur Rehman has been correctly dealt with thereunder.
16. ' For the above reasons Appeal No,4 of 1985 is allowed and the decision of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court dated 31-12-1984 is set aside, resultantly the Application No,71 of 1983 filed by Habibur Rehman stands dismissed. As a consequence of the acceptance of the Appeal No, 4 of 1985 the Appeal No, 10 of 1985 is dismissed. However the parties are left to bear their own costs.