1. Both these appeals involve identical facts, and common question of law, therefore, same are being decided by a single judgment.
2. Facts briefly stated are, that respondent Raz Muhammad was appointed as cleaner on 17-1-1978 whereas respondent Abdul Khaliq was appointed as tracer en 31-5-1978, in Thermal Power Station, Quetta. After the lapse of 3 years they w- re promoted as Helpers on 14-1-1980 and 30-6-1981 respectively and since then a e performing duties in said capacity. It is the case of respondents that under he existing rules they were qualified for promotion as Machine-Attendants but ha e not been considered for the same. It is alleged that various Helpers were promoted as Machine- Attendants during years 1983-84 and 1987, but respondents were throughout ignored. They felt further aggrieved when towards year 1989 few Helpers were promoted in Thermal Power Station, Quetta, but respondents were again ignored. They however preferred a departmental appeal towards 6-2-1989 expressing violation of right guaranteed to them by law, but same was not even entertained. Ultimately, grievance notice under section 25, I.R.O. was sent to Authority by respondents on 20-6-1989 whereby reply through Letter No, QTS/RE/Estt/PF/4500, dated July 5, 1989 was communicated to them. Extract is reproduced below:-- "Subject: Notice under Section 25-A of Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969.
2. Your notice dated 18-6-1989 received in this office on 26-6-1989. It is to inform you that this office has thoroughly considered your case sympathetically, and it has been found that you have no merit under the Rules to be promoted. Now you will be promoted on your turn as per seniority list maintained in this office."
3. Respondent Raz Muhammad and Abdul Khaliq were dissatisfied therefore they filed grievance petitions Nos, 38 of 1989 and 40 of 1989 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court on 7-8-1989 and 10-8-1989 respectively. Appellant seriously resisted both the petitions. Questions of maintainability of grievance petition and jurisdiction of Labour Court were specifically pleaded in the written statement. Parties adduced evidence and eventually learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court by means of order dated 15-4-1990 allowed the grievance petitions; by issuing direction to consider case of respondents for promotion alongwith other promotees. Operative portion of said order is reproduced below:-- "11. I am of the view that this act of the respondent is illegal and in violation of the rules which have been prepared for the employees of the establishment. It was compulsory upon respondent to consider the names of all the helpers who at the time of promotion fulfilling the prescribed conditions. As it appears from the record and statement that applicants' names were not considered despite of their fulfilling the conditions of promotion, therefore, order of the respondent dated 21-1-1989 is set aside, which has no force because same has been passed in violation of natural justice, therefore, respondent is directed to take into consideration the cases of applicants for promotion alongwith promotees apart of their fitness."
4. Appellant feeling aggrieved from the aforementioned decision in both the cases, have now separately preferred Appeals Nos, 21 and 22 of 1990 in this Court.
5. Mr. Ehsan Jafri learned counsel for appellant vehemently urged that by virtue of amendment introduced through Act LXXXIV of 1975 PLD Central Statute 1976 p. 134 employees of Authority have been declared to be civil servants, therefore, for all intents and purposes the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon grievance put forth by respondents. Reliance was placed on the observations in cases (i) The Water and Power Development Authority and others v. Muhammad Yasin and others 1986 PLC 771, (ii) Muhammad Latif Bhatti v. Chairman Area Electricity Board (E), Gujranwala 1987 S CM R 1936; (iii) Miss Akhtar Roseline v. Chief Engineer, Telecommunications WAPDA, Lahore and others 1980 PLC (C.S.) 380.
6. It was further contended that no right guaranteed to appellant, had at all been violated, therefore, even while determining merits Labour Court acted illegally by granting relief to which respondents were not entitled.
7. Whereas on the other hand learned counsel for respondents opposing the appeals emphatically argued that irrespective of Act LXXXIV of 1975 keeping in view duties of respondents and nature of their grievances, they continued to be workers, therefore, Labour Court was justified in granting relief to them. To supplement his submissions reliance was placed on the observations in reported cases:
(i) Pakistan Television Corporation v. M. Babar Zaman and others 1989 SCMR 1549;
(ii) WAPDA through Area Electricity Board, Gujranwala v. Maqsood Ahmed 1988 PLC 643.
8. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by learned counsel for parties. Most pivotal question raised in this appeal related to jurisdiction of Labour Court for entertaining grievance petition regarding employees of WAPDA subsequent to the promulgation of Act LXXXIV or 1975. It may be seen that West Pakistan Amending Act (LXXXIV of 1975) expressly declared all the employees of 'Authority' as civil servants. Evidently in pursuance thereof adjudication of all grievances about service disputes of WAPDA employees fell within the ambit of Service Tribunals Act, 1973. It is profitable here to reproduce below, the Amending enactment PLD 1976 (C.S.) 134.
9. ACT LXXXIV OF 1975 WEST PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1975.
10. An Act further to amend the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958 (Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, Part I, 22nd December, 1975).
11. The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the President on the 19th December, 1975 is hereby published for general information:- Whereas it is expedient further to amend the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958 (West Pakistan Act No, XXXI of 1958), for the purpose hereinafter appearing; It is hereby enacted as follows:-
1. Short title and commencement.--(1) This Act may be called the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 1975.
(2) It shall come into force at once.
2. Amendment of section 17, W.P. Act No, XXXI of 1958.--In the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958 (West Pakistan Act No, XXXI of 1958), in section 17, after subsection (1), the following new subsections shall be inserted, namely:-- "(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) or any rules made, or orders or instructions issued, by the Authority, or in the terms and conditions of service of any person employed by, or serving under the Authority, the Authority may, at any time, retire or remove from its service any person without assigning any reason, after giving him not less than thirty days notice or pay for the period by which such notice falls short of the thirty days.
12. (1-B) Service under the Authority is hereby declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under the Authority, not being a person who is on deputation to the Authority from any Province, shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (LXX of 1973)."
3. Repeal.--The West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 (XVI of 1975), is hereby repealed."
13. However, Division Bench of Lahore High Court in case WAPDA v. Muhammad Yasin and others 1986 PLD 771 while interpreting the amended provisions of statute, held that WAPDA employees are unquestionably civil servants. In another case Miss Akhtar Roseline v. Chief Engineer, WAPDA 1980 PLC (C.S.) 380, Federal Service Tribunal while interpreting effect of 17(1-B) explicitly observed that Labour Court had no jurisdiction in service matters of WAPDA employees. Honourable Supreme Court when discussing status of WAPDA employees in case Muhammad Latif Bhatti v.
14. Chairman,,Area Electricity Board (E), Gujranwala 1987 SCMR 1936 did not disturb the findings, whereby decision of Labour Court regarding service grievance of WAPDA employees were declared to be without jurisdiction. The relevant narration in the abovequoted judgment is reproduced below: "The two appellants were Line Superintendent in WAPDA posted in Gujranwala District. They were charge-sheeted and after obtaining their replies and affording personal hearing to one and a factual inquiry into the case of another, they were both removed from service, Mr. Muhammad Latif Bhatti by an order, dated the 2nd of December, 1981 and Mr. Muhammad Siddique by an order, dated the 13th of February, 1982. Both of them served on the employer a grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and thereafter approached the Labour Court and succeeded in getting their removal orders set aside. On Constitutional petitions filed by the WAPDA, the orders of their removal from service, were restored as the interference of Labour Court was found to be without jurisdiction, the appellants having been declared to be civil servants for the purposes of seeking relief under the Service Tribunals Act vide section 17(1-B) by an Ordinance, 84 of 1975. After such a decision by the High Court in the year 1984 the two appellants filed an appeal under section 4 of the Federal Service Tribunal Act."
15. The above view has further been consistently maintained. Reference in this behalf can also be made to following reported judgments:-
(i) Hari Kishan Dass v. Chairman, WAPDA PLD 1983 Quetta 61;
(ii) Muhammad Duryab Yousuf Qureshi v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore PLD 1979 Lah.
16. 406;
(iii) WAPDA v. Siraj Din and another 1983 PLC 570;
(iv) Revenue Officer (E) WAPDA, Daska Division, Sialkot v. Nazar Hussain 1983 PLC 846;
(v) Muhammad Hussain and others v. WAPDA and others 1984 PLC 1204;
(vi) WAPDA and others v. Zahoor Haider Shah and others 1985 PLC 856;
(vii) Mian Muhammad Shafi Javed v. WAPDA 1986 PLC 83;
(viii) WAPDA through its Chairman, Area Electricity Board, Hyderabad v. Saeeduddin Ahmed and others 1986 PLC 891;
(ix) WAPDA v. Muhammad Saleem and others 1987 PLC 649;
(x) Amir Ali v. Ghulam Farid and another 1988 PLC 726;
(xi) Water and Power Development Authority v. Mirza Akhlaq Ahmed and another 1988 MLD 668.
17. The provisions of aforementioned law and interpretation thereof in judgments referred above, clearly suggest that WAPDA employees are deemed to be civil servants for purpose of their grievance.
18. Now reverting to case-law referred on behalf of respondents, it may be seen that Labour Appellate Tribunal in case WAPDA through Electricity Board, Gujranwala v. Maqsood Ahmed 1988 PLC 643 though re-affirmed that WAPDA Employees, by virtue of section 17(1-B) were amenable to the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal, but observed that when interim matters are challenged which are not covered by Civil Servants Act in that event Labour Court continues to retain jurisdiction and requirements of Standing Orders to that extent hold the field. With utmost respect I am inclined to disagree with the conclusions of last quoted judgment. In my humble opinion, provisions of 17(1-B) introduced by amending Act LXXXIV of 1975 wherein WAPDA employees were declared to be 'Civil Servants' constitutes complete ouster of Labour Court. Similarly principle of law discussed in 1989 SCMR 1549 is not applicable to the facts and B circumstances of instant case. Obviously Legislature has consciously treated the employees of WAPDA as Civil servants, to be regulated by Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Therefore, it cannot be doubted that by operation of law the service disputes of WAPDA employees stand excluded from the preview of Industrial Relations Ordinance.
19. 'Secondly even on merits respondents have sought promotion from the post of Helpers to Machine-attendants in supersession of the decision taken by the authorities. It may be seen that persons who could be affected by the orders of Labour Court have not been impleaded. Therefore, no adverse decision can obviously be made without affording hearing to such affected persons.
20. Even otherwise Letter No, QTS/RE/Estt/PF/4500, dated July 5, 1989 already reproduced above clearly reflects that cases of respondents were sympathetically considered under the rules. It was explained that they shall be promoted on their turn according to seniority list maintained in the office. Apparently there is nothing to show that any particular right guaranteed to them under the existing rules has at all been violated.
21. Learned Presiding Officer Labour Court has passed the impugned order by ignoring legal and factual aspects. Thus, same being patently defective is, directed to be set aside. Consequently for the above reasons grievance petitions filed by respondents stand dismissed.
22. Appeals disposed of accordingly.
23. Parties are left to bear their own costs.