JUDGMENT Raja Afrasiab Khan J.-The petitioner, Syed Ashraf AShah, Canteen Manager, has moved this petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 198l, against the respondents challenging the orders of the Wokrmen's Compensation Commissioner and Authority under Payment of Wages Act for Pakistan Railways dated 4-5-1981 and the order dated 8-6-1982, passed by the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, holding that the petitioner has no locus standi to file an application under section is(2) of the Payment of Wages Act. 1936, and that they had got no jurisdiction to entertain the application and to give decision thereon. The petitioner was appointed as Canteen Manager by the Chairman Divisional Superintendent Office Canteen, Pakistan Railways, Lahore, vide his order dated 17-4-1272 (Annexure 'A') at the monthly pay of Rs.
175. At the time of his appointment, the petitioner was also required to deposit a sum of Rs 2*>0 as security with two sureties in the name of Chairman Divisional Superintendent Office Canteen, Lahore, in their saving bank accouut ef Postal Department. The appointment letter further bound down thgoetitioner to comply with the Canteen Rules and Regulations issued bwpd'e Railway Administration and those issued thereafter. The pay scaleof the petitioner was later revised from Rs. 175 to Rs. 230 and ultimately the pay was further increased to Rs. 374 per month. The petitioner continued receiving his pay upto November, 1973, and thereafter the Railway Administration refused to pay him his salary. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of this act of the Railway Department sent a grievance notice to the Chairman Canteen Committee, but no action was taken thereon. Finally the petitioner moved a grievance petition under section /5-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, for the recovery of his wages. The learned Labour Court vide its decision dated 6-11-1979, dis- disposed of the application of the petit oner with the observations that the services of the petitioner shall not be terminated except in accordance with law and that the petitioner may file an application for the recovery of his wages before the competent Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. On the basis of the aforesaid decision the petitioner moved the Authority under the payment of Wages Act, 1936, wherein preliminary o^jeetion of jurisdiction was taken which was turned drown by the Authority vide its order dated 21-6-1980 (Annexure -C') and it was held that the Authority had jurisdiction in the matter and it was further observed that the reason- dent- Raliway cannot be permitted to take contradictory plea* before the Punjab Labour Court and the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. However, subsequently vide Annexure 'D\ the order dated 4-5-1981. Passed by the same Authority held that the Court possessed no jurisdiction to entertain the matter regarding the payment of wages due to ihc petitioner from the Railway Administration The petitioner feeling aggrieved of this decision, went in appeal before the Punnjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, which appeal was dismissed vide its order dated 1-6-1982 (Annexure C'E).
2. This Constitutional Petition was admitted to regular hearing by my Lord Mr. Justice S. S. Jan relying upon S. L, Kapoor v. Emperor AIR 1937 Lahore 547). It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are not competent to take contradictory pleas at different times to their convenience. He states that the petitioner was employed by the Railway Administration and as such, for all practical purposes the petitioner being Manager of the Canteen of the Railway, was Railway servant. It is next contended that the appointing authority of the petitioner was Divisional Superintendent of Railway and that the appointment letter (Annexure 'A') will show beyond any doubt that the petitioner is the employee of the Railway Administration. This being so, the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner as well as the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, have failed to perform their lawful duties as they were required by law to do so. The learned counsel for the R 3. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties very carefully.. The parties have also submitted their arguments in writing which have been perused by me thoroughly. I do agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petititioner is an employee of the Railway Administration. It is crystal clear from Annexure *A' the order dated 14-7-W72 passed by the Chairman, D S. Office Canteen. P. W. R. Lahore, to show that the petitioner was appointed as Canteen Manager with certain terms and conditions o' his employment. The petitioner, therefore, is an employee of the Railway administration for all practical purposes. The learned Presiding Officer. Punjab Labour Court No 2 has given a wrong and wholly unwarranted decision vide his order dated 8-6-1912. The arpointment letter of the petitioner has not at all been considered correctly. If the learned Presiding Officer had applied his judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and that if he had considered the appointment letter of the petitioner properly, he would not have passed the impugned order as he did vide his order dated s-6-1982. The nature of the work being done by the petitionar as Manager of the Canteen is such, which will decidedly come within the purview of the definition clause of Railway Administration contained in section 3(6) of the Railway Act, 1890. The definition of "Railway Administration" under section 3(6) ef the Railway Act, 1890, is as follows ; "Railway Administration" or administration" in the case of a railway administtered by the Government o a State, means the manager of the railway and inclules the Government or the State, and in the case of a railway administered by a railway company, means the railway company."
4. The definition clause clearly covers the case of the petitioner as a part and parcel of the Railway Administration. The Railway Administration means the Manager of the Railway and the same expression includes the Government or the State and in the case of a Railway administered by a Railway company, means a Railway company It is abundantly clear that the Manager of the Railway also includes the Divisional Superindent of Railway who has passed the appoinc-meat order vide Annexure 'A* The Divisional Superintendent Railway is a very important functionary in the Railway Administration as defined in section 3(6) of the Railway Act, 1890. The learned counsel for the respondents has conceded that the petitioner was appointed as Canteen Manager by the D.S. Railway but at the same time he states that the said appointment was in his private capacity 1 fail to understand that how the learned counsel for the respondent can state that the creation of Canteen Committee for providing services to the employees of the Railways could be termed as a private affair. The administration of the canteenCommittce was headed by the D.S. Of Railways. All the affairs of the Canteen Committee were supervised, checked and looked after by the D.S. And the salaries of the Canteen Manager as w 11 as the members of the staff were to be paid from the funds ot the Canteen Committee which is managed under the supervision of the Divisional Superintendent. It is, therefore, clear that the creation of the Canteen Committee is the result of an act by the Divisional Superintendent Railway who is in turn a very important functionary of the Railway Admini>tration.
Furthermore, the Rules were framed under section 33-A of th Factories Act, 1947, which Rules were again framed by the functionary of the Rail- Way administration. The very preamble of the Rules shows that there was a need of organization which may assist in providing food of nutrite value prepared under hygienic conditions for the employees of the Railways, and object of the creation of the canteen was to provide better food, tea and light refresh neat on comparatively oneaper rates to the servants of the Railways Rule 1 of the aforesaid hulas disclosed about the constitution of the Canteen Committee. According to this there shall be a Chairman along with Vice Chairman and Honoray Secretary. According to the rule, the Divisional Superintendent has been authorised to appoint two more persons as members. Rule 3 states that the Divisional Superintendent or an officer of the equivalent r* nk in his capacitv as an administrative head, shall have the power to overrule any decision of the Managing Committee Shall be approved by the Divisional Superintentnt. Tbe r arration of the above said rules will show that the Canteen Committee or the Manager of the Canteen Committee are to work under the direct control and supervision of the Divisional Superintendent of Railway. Therefore, in my considered view, the petitioner is an employee of the Railway Administration in view of his functions as enumerated under the Rule> framed hy the Railway Administration Therefore, the case of the petitioner comes directly under the test laid down in the definition clause of Railway administration as stated earlier. The petitioner is serving as Canteen Manager in connection with the service of the Railways Administration as defined in section 3(7) of the Railway Act,
190. There is a direct ruling on the subject which in the case of S L. Kapoor y.Emperor (A I.R 1937 Lahore 547). This is the first authority on the subject in which it was h Id that the persons who have contracted with the Railway to perform service of providing meals for travellers oa its behalf are 'railway servants.' This Indian authority was referred to is a latter judgment of this Cout in the Mst. Nazir Begum eta. v. Province of West Pakistan etc. (P.L D. 1966 (W.P.) Lahore 196). It was held in this authority that the expression 'in connection with the service by a railway' is of very wide import indeed, and includes besides whole-time employees belonging to the established service under the Railways, all persons cvea if employed casually, if they are engaged in an aetivity in connection with service by the Railway. It was further held that now the Railway does not merely carry the passaager > goods, it inter alia, provides all sorts of comforts and amenities to the passengers and any arrangement to provide such amenities would be included in the above mentioned expression. Respectfully following the law laid down in the aforesaid D.B. Authority of this Court. I proceed to hold that the petitioner is a Railway servant and is thereby entitled to all sorts of amenities available to such Railway servants under the provisions of law and the Rules framed thereunder. Further, the conduct of the managment of the Railway in the instant case was also objectionable as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as the learned counsel for the Railways has conceded that the Court had the jurisdiction to decide upon the dispute in hand but later on took a turn by saying that the said Court bad no jurisdiction at all. I find that the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore failed to exercise jnrisdiction vested in it by law in not deciding the controversy before him.
5. Resultantly, I declare the impugned order dated 8-6-1982, passed by the Presidiag Officer, Punjao Laoour Court No. 2, Lahore, as well as the order dated 4-5-1981, passed by the Workmea's Compensation Com- missioner and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for Pakistan Rail vays, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. With the result, the case of the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending in law and I direct accordingly that the officer competent will dispose of the ease within one week in the light of the above ooservations. The petition is accepted with costs.