1. ' In both the above cases the applicants were employed as Drivers in the respondent organization and admittedly both were terminated without affording any opportunity to defend themselves or to meet the charges. The action of the respondent in both the cases has been pleaded as male fide and so both the applicants have approached this Court, after necessary grievance notices under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 for setting aside of the impugned orders of their removal and for their reinstatement with back benefits. In both the cases the applicants were examined but the WAPDA Organization did not lead any evidence in defence, as according to the plea advanced on behalf of the WAPDA, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the applications of the applicants and adjudicate upon the same.
2. ' I have heard Mr. S. Yawar Hussain, Representative for the Applicant, Syed Ashfaqul Hassan Hamdani, and Mr. S.M.H. Rizvi Advocate for the applicant Mehboob Hassan, as also Mr. Abdul Hameed Khan, Advocate on behalf of the WAPDA, Organization.
3. ' At the very outset I may record here that the learned counsel for the respondent has categorically conceded that if this Court comes to this conclusions that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon these cases, the action of the respondent would certainly be liable to be set aside because the removal of the applicants was ordered without holding any enquiry or serving any charge-sheet.
4. However, it has been strenuously argued that this Court has no jurisdiction in view of the specific provisions of section 17(1-A) and (1-B) of WAPDA Act, 1958 as every employee of WAPDA is a civil servant and if he has any grievance he has to approach the Services Tribunals under the provisions of Services Tribunals Act 1973. Learned counsel has placed reliance on 1983 SCMR 663 and 1983 PLC 395. Mr. Yawar Hussain learned Representative for applicant Ashfaqul Hassan, and Mr. S.F.H. Rizvi, learned counsel for the applicant Mehboob Hassan, have on the other hand, submitted that no doubt the applicants, being the employees of WAPDA, are deemed to be civil servants, but in view of the provisions of Services Tribunals Act, 1973, a number of employees have been excluded and so they have to be regulated by the provisions of I.R.O.
5. 1969. They also submitted that all these employees who are covered by the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act and Factories Act, shall not be controlled by the Services Tribunals Act, 1973 and so the Labour Courts shall have the jurisdiction in respect of their matters. They also pleaded that the applicants herein are drivers attached to a place where the energy is produced and if they are connected with the generation and transmission of power, they could be considered as workmen within the meanings of clause (ixx) of Schedule II of section 2 of Workmen's Compensation Act. They have placed reliance on the NIRC, decisions reported in 1978 PLC 330 and 1980 PLC 550.
6. ' Since it is not disputed that the applicants are civil servants and since section 17(1-B) of WAPDA Act, 1968 also makes it vividly clear that all employees of WAPDA are deemed to be civil servants. I need not discuss it any further. However, the main point which possess for consideration is whether the applicants can competently invoke the jurisdiction of this Court or they have to approach the Services Tribunal. In the two reported NIRC cases such employees who are connected with generation transformation and transmission of power have been held to be workmen. It has also been held in these cases that the persons, who are covered by the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act and Factories Act, are to be excluded from the definition of the terms civil servants. However, in F.U. Malik's case reported in 1983 SCMR 663, every employee has been treated as civil servant and considering this case the jurisdiction of the Services Tribunal was extended to all the employees as per the decision reported in 1984 PLC (C.S.) 1594. In 1980 PLC 664(o) the import and effect of section 17(1-B) of WAPDA Act was considered in detail and it was laid therein "that unlike Services Tribunals Act which adopts the definition of the civil servants gives in the Civil Servants Act, the WAPDA Act does not adopt the definition of civil servants from any other law. The definition of the civil servants given in the WAPDA Act is independent of any other definition of civil servants given in any other law /Therefore, the exceptions made in the definition of civil servants in the Civil Servants Act do not apply to the employees of WAPDA". At a later stage of this judgment it was also held "no such distinction is available in the definition of Civil servants under sections 17(1-B) of the WAPDA Act although the Civil Servants Act, 1973 makes certain exemptions on the basis of above interpretation the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts was excluded in respect of the employees of WAPDA irrespective of their nature of employment applying this dictum to the facts of the present cases on well and in the absence of any other law directly on the Legal proposition involved herein.) am inclined to hold that this Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon any matter relating to the WAPDA Employees.
7. ' In view of the above, both the applications are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.