1. ' This First Appeal is directed against impugned order, dated 20-2-1979 of learned IInd Additional District Judge, Karachi, whereby he has rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. And consequently dismissed the suit as not maintainable.
2. ' Briefly stated the relevant facts are that appellant was an employee of Pakistan Railways and was posted as Foreman Grade-III in Diesel Shade, Karachi Cantonment, when he was charge-sheeted and after enquiry was removed from service, vide order, dated 20-1-1976. Appellant filed Departmental Appeal, which was pending, when he filed suit for declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act and for recovery of arrears of pay amounting to Rs,7,425. Written statement was also filed and subsequently an application was separately filed under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. The trial Court on the question of jurisdiction having relied upon the cases of Municipal Committee, Jhang v. Muhammad Ramzan PLD 1978 Lah. 498 and Sunshine Diaries Limited v. Comm. Sind Employees Social Security Institution and others PLD 1976 Kar. 1228, has come. To the conclusion that in view of section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, forum of Labour Court is available as Special Tribunal to determine the dispute between the parties as such jurisdiction of the civil Court stands barred as contemplated under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code.
3. ' This Appeal was admitted, vide Order of this Court, dated 4-8-1979 on the ground that perusal of provisions of I.R.O. Do not specifically or impliedly oust the jurisdiction of the civil Court and additionally reliance was placed by the learned counsel of the petitioner on the case of Muhammad Akram Butt v. Government of Pakistan and 3 others PLD 1978 Kar. 132, in which it is held that for removal from service for misconduct, remedy under section 25-A of I.P.O. Was not adequate alternate remedy and petitioner was entitled to the relief claim under Article 199 of the Constitution. Vide order, dated 15-12-1979 notices were issued to M/s. M.L. Shahani and Obaidur Rehman, Advocates to appear as amicus curiae and assist the Court in the determination of the point whether a "workman" can file a suit for redress of his grievance notwithstanding the provisions contained in section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 relying upon an alleged analogy of ratio decidendi in decision reported in PLD 1978 Kar. 132 stated above, which provided for remedy by way of writ petition under the constitutional jurisdiction.
4. I have heard Mr. Manzoor All Khan, Advocate for the appellant, Mr.A.T. Mehmood, Advocate for respondents and M/s. Obaidur Rehman and M.L. Shahani amicus curiae. The point at issue is whether suit is barred by virtue of provisions of section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969. There is no dispute about the fact that section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code empowers the civil Court to have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 is Special Law which provides for regulation of relations between "employers" and "workmen" and settlement of differences or disputes arising between them or matters connected therewith and ancillary thereto. Section 25-A has been added subsequently by Ordinance No,9 of 1972 to provide for redress of individual grievances and in the special forum of Labour Court. This remedy is given to a "worker" on the side of employees. "Worker" is further defined in section 2 (xxviii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to mean a person not falling within the definition o employer and in the exceptions is included a person who is employed in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs,800 P.M. This clearly shows that supervisor drawing salary of more than Rs,800 is excluded from the definition of a worker, hence provisions of section 25-A of I.R.O. Would not be attracted in his case. In the instant case appellant, who is plaintiff in the suit at the relevant time when he was removed from service was Foreman in Grade- III drawing monthly salary of Rs,827.22. This fact that the appellant was supervisor at the relevant time and was drawing salary of more than Rs,800 P.M. As claimed by him is not denied, disputed or challenged. It is so admitted in the written statement and Mr.A.T. Mahmood, 'Advocate for respondents also admitted candidly before me that appellant at the relevant time was supervisor as Foreman in Grade-III and was drawing a salary of more than Rs,800 P.M. In these circumstances the undisputed position is that appellant at the relevant time was not a worker hence provisions , of section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 would not be attracted in his case.
5. ' When confronted With the position stated above, Mr.Manzoor Ali Khan, Advocate for the appellant submitted that the confusion had arisen because of misconceptions of legal position adopted by him in the memorandum of appeal and misplaced reliance. Mr.Manzoor Ali Khan has now stated that the correct stand taken by the appellant is that he being supervisor is not a "worker" hence section 25-A of I.R.O. Will not apply in his case and his suit is improperly dismissed by the learned trial Court on that ground. Mr.Obaidur Rehman, Advocate submitted that if this is the stand to be taken by the appellant that he is not a worker then there is no dispute or confusion and the remedy or forum as contemplated under section 25-A of I.R.O. Is not available to him and he can obtain remedy wherever it is available to him under the law. Mr. M.L. Shahani, Advocate is also in full agreement with Mr.Obaidur Rehman.
6. ' In the light of what is stated above, if the impugned order is examined in depth, it would appear that the learned trial Judge in dismissing the suit summarily was mostly impressed by the fact that according to him plaintiff in the suit was a "Workman" hence remedy was available to him under section 25-A of I.R.O. And civil suit was barred. On the other hand, the stand taken on behalf of the plaintiff in the suit is that he was at the relevant time not a "Workman" and there is sufficient manifestation about this assertion in the pleadings of the parties and this fact is admitted before me by both the learned Advocates, Mr.Manzoor Ali Khan, Advocate as well as Mr.A.T. Mehmood.
7. ' In such circumstances I set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the trial Court for decision strictly according to the law. Since this is an old matter, the trial Court is directed to dispose of this case on urgent basis within three months. Record may be dispatched to the trial Court immediately.