' As the law point involved in all the three appeals captioned above is the same, the appeals are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. So far as appeal No. 1 is concerned, annual increment of Zahoor Haider Shah, respondent, Line Superintendent Grade-II, was stopped with future effect and dues for the suspension period of 28 days were also not paid. He, therefore, brought grievance petition in Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore.
3. Abdus Sattar, respondent, was, according to him, Line Superintendent Grade-II, but his seniority was fixed with Linemen Grade-I and he was reverted. He, therefore, brought the grievance petition in Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala.
4. Tasleem Ghani, respondent, was a bill distributor. On the allegation that he had failed to distribute large number of bills to the consumers, he was dismissed from service. He, therefore, successfully brought a grievance petition in Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore.
5. All the three appeals succeed on the short ground that the three respondents in the above- captioned appeals are civil servants, so the learned Labour Courts that accepted the petition had no jurisdiction.
' The controversy on the point has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in 'F. U. Malik v. WAPDA'
(Civil Petition No. 163/R of 1982), decided on 5th December, 1982, holding that all WAPDA employees are civil servants for the purpose of Services Tribunals Act. The observations read as under :- "We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and find that there could be no plausible excuse for the petitioner to have not availed of his right as a Government Servant under the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958 (West Pakistan Act No. XXXI of 1958) because all the employees of the Authority are 'civil servants' as relevant section of the aforesaid Act, as amended, reads as under :- ' It has been further observed :- "We agree with the finding of the learned Service Tribunal that the petitioner holding very responsible post of Senior Budget and Accounts Officer should have been aware of the provisions of section 17 (1-B) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, as amended, and that the petitioner was rightly refused the condonation of delay in filing his appeal."
' Following the above-mentioned ruling of the Supreme Court I hold that all the respondents are civil servants and the Labour Courts had n jurisdiction. I, therefore, accept all the three appeals and setting aside the impugned decisions of the learned Labour Courts, direct the return of the grievance petitions to the respondents for presentation to the proper forum.