' The applicant was employed as Assistant Lineman in the respondent establishment. He was appointed on 3 months probation which he is said to have completed satisfactorily. However, on 13th November, 1984 i.e. After more than 3 months of his appointment, the applicant was terminated on the ground that his work was not found satisfactory. Aggrieved by this unilateral action, and considering this in violation of S.
0. 15(4), he served a grievance notice, dated 5th January, 1985 and then instituted the present petition. The main grievance of the applicant is that though he is covered by the Labour Laws including Standing Orders Ordinance and though he had completed the 3 months' probationary period successfully, still his services were terminated without adopting the mandatory legal provision and so the impugned order is quite illegal and unwarranted.
2. The respondent in its reply statement, pleaded that the applicant was appointed on 26th July, 1984 on a probation of one year. He absented himself from duty from 1st September, 1983 to 13th November, 1984 and so he was terminated on account of misconduct. It has also been pleaded that this Court has no jurisdiction because according to section 17(1B) of WAPDA Act of 1958, Labour Laws are not applicable to the WAPDA, establishment and further that its employees are Civil Servants, besides this, the services of WAPDA employees are governed by Essential Services Act of 1952.
3. The applicant only appeared as witness in support of his case, while the respondent did not tender any evidence and based its case only on legal pleas.
4. I have heard Mr. Amanullah Qureshi, Representative for the applicant, and Mr. Abdul Hameed Khan, Advocate for the Respondents. I have considered the legal proposition involved in this case.
' It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that applicant used to himself work on electric polls and he was covered by the provisions of Workmen's Compesation Act. His submission is that according to the provisions of Service Tribunals Act of 1973, such employees who are governed by the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act as also the Factories Act would be outside the jurisdiction of Services Tribunal. Learned Representative accordingly urged that in view of this specific exclusion, even if the applicant is considered to be Civil Servant, still he has to approach this Court for the redressal of his grievances. His further submission is that WAPDA, has no statutory rules of services and so S.
0. Ordinance is applicable to its employees. He also submitted that there is no proof on record to show that the provisions of Essential Services Act, 1952 are made applicable. Finally, it has been urged that since admittedly the applicant had put in more than 3 months service, his services could not have been terminated particularly on a stigma without holding any enquiry as contemplated by S.
0. 15(4).
6. Mr. Abdul Hameed however, confined his arguments on the legal point in regard to the jurisdiction of this Court. His submission is that section 17(1-B) of WAPDA Act, 1958 is quite unambiguous and according to it every employee of WAPDA is deemed to be a Civil Servant for the purposes of Services Tribunal. Learned counsel placed much emphasis on the phrase, "for the purposes of Services Tribunal" and submits that the definition of a Civil Servant as given in Civil Servants Act, 1973 is not to be considered in view of the specific definition of a workman laid down in WAPDA Act itself. Learned counsel submits that according to the aforesaid provisions every worker is a Civil Servant for the purposes of Service Tribunals Act and so if an employee is aggrieved by any action of WAPDA, he has 'to approach only the Services Tribunal and cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Court. He has placed reliance on 1983 PLC 895 and NLR 1985 Labour 29.
7. In order to appreciate the contentions of both the parties, it would be advantageous to reproduce section 17(1-B) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 (as amended in 1975) :-- "Service under the Authority is hereby declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding 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 Service Tribunals Act."
8. This provision has repeatedly been examined in a number of cases and there had been conflicting views on the question of status of workman. One view is that a workman is not a Civil Servant as defined in Service Tribunals Act, 1973. According to this view, the WAPDA employees were excluded from the definition of Civil Servant, categories of workman in view of the exclusion made by section 2(b) of Civil Servants Act, 1973. Such a view was taken in 1978 PLC 330 as also in 1982 PLC 1025 and 1069. However, this view was not approved by the High Court of Punjab and in the case of WAPDA v. Miss Akhtar Rozeline , the Lahore High Court observed that section 17(1-B) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 itself contains independent definition of Civil Servant, which provides that every person, holding a post under the Authority except those on deputation, shall be deemed to be Civil Servant, for the purposes of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and no exception has been made in the case of workman employed by the Authority. In 1983 SCMR 663 as also 1984 PLC 592 also it has been held that every employee of WAPDA, is Civil Servant, and the exceptions made in the definition of Civil Servant in the Civil Servants Act do not apply to the employees of WAPDA.
Accordingly the jurisdiction of the Labour Court would be ousted and the employees of the WAPDA can only approach the Services Tribunal for the redressal of their grievances. I have already taken a similar view in Application No. 102/83, decided on 4th December, 1984.
9. In view of the above, I am convinced that this petition would not be maintainable before this Court and so it is dismissed. 1983 PLC 8951 1