' Since the legal point involved in all the three appeals captioned above is common, the said appeals are being disposed of together through this single judgment in which Nazir Ahmad will be described as respondent No, 1, Muhammad Ismail as respondent No, 2 and Muhammad Yousaf as respondent No, 3.
2. The allegation against respondent No, 1 was that he intentionally gave false estimate by including two excessive polls in order to oblige Bashir Ahmad to supply electricity to his village Shahkot, which had not been included in the scheme. The allegation against respondent No, 2 was that although he passed Matriculation examination in 1969, yet he changed the year into 1965 in the photostat copy of the certificate by making overwriting. He was firstly demoted from Lineman Grade-I to Lineman Grade-II and again on the same charge was further demoted to the post of Assistant Lineman. He challenged his reversions. Muhammad Yousaf was suspended for indefinite period on the allegation of the commission of gross negligence, which resulted in the fatal electric shock to a boy of village Kot Bahadur Shah on 6th March, 1982.
3. The grievance petitions of respondents Nos, 1 and 3 were accepted by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereas the petition of respondent No, 2 was accepted by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore. The appeals of WAPDA succeed on the short ground that the respondents being civil servants, the learned lower Courts lacked jurisdiction in the matter. The Supreme Court has in F. U. Malik v. WAPDA decided on 5th December, 1982 (Civil Petition No, 163-R of 1982) has resolved the controversy by holding that all WAPDA employees are civil servants. The observations made by the Supreme Court 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 clause of the aforesaid Act, as amended, reads as under :- ' It has been further observed "We agree with the finding of the learned Services 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."
I am bound by the view expressed by the Supreme Court by virtue of Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 and following the said ruling hold that the respondents are civil servants by virtue of section 17-(1-B) of WAPDA Act and thus the learned Courts below had no jurisdiction. I, accordingly, accept all the three appeals and setting aside the impugned decisions, direct the return of the grievance petitions to the respondents.