In this Constitutional petition the petitioner has brought under challenge the order dated 9-12-1986 passed by respondent No, 2, accepting the appeal of respondent No, 1 and also order dated 20-7- 1986 passed by respondent No, 3 holding that respondent No, 1 was a workman.
2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition briefly stated arc that respondent No, 1 who was employee of the Provincial Government in Electricity Department, in the year 1959 was transferred to WAPDA alongwith other employees of the said Department. According to the case of the petitioners respondent No, 1 was on deputation with WAPDA and continued to be a civil servant as he was not appointed by the WAPDA under section 17 of the WAPDA Act. Respondent No, 1 was arrested in a bribe case. He was suspended on account of this case and was tried. The Criminal Court acquitted respondent No,1 giving him benefit of doubt. As a consequence of this judgment of the Criminal Court respondent No, 1 was reinstated. However, he was not given any benefit for the period he remained suspended and the said period was treated as extraordinary leave without pay through order dated 20-8-1977 passed by the Managing Director (Power) WAPDA. Feeling aggrieved from the said order respondent No, 1 made a grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore. He alleged in the petition that he was a workman. His grievance inter alia was that the said order was not passed by a competent authority. The said Court through order dated 20-7-1986, though held that respondent No, 1 was a workman but his petition was dismissed on the ground that the impugned order could be legally passed. Feeling dissatisfied respondent No, 1 filed appeal against the said order of the Punjab Labour Court before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, which has been accepted through order dated 9-12-1986 impugned in this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this writ petition firstly argued that respondent No, 1 was a civil servant when he was transferred to WAPDA and in WAPDA his legal status was that of a deputationist and he continued to retain the status of a civil servant. According to his argument as per definition of civil servant given in the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, respondent No, 1 could be treated to be a workman if the nature of his duties were such which were performed by workman and worker as defined in Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and Factories Act, 1934 respectively. According to the learned counsel, respondent No, 1 was junior superintendent, therefore, he was not a person who was performing the duties of such nature as given in the definition of workman and worker in the said two enactments, therefore, he could not be treated to be a workman.
4. I have considered the arguments. Learned counsel for the petitioners when asked could not point out as to what evidence was produced by the petitioners before the Punjab Labour Court to establish as to what were the nature of duties of respondent No, 1 and he frankly conceded that no copy of such evidence has been placed on the file of this writ petition. He submitted that perhaps no evidence in fact was produced. In the absence of any evidence in this respect, regarding the duties which respondent No, 1 was performing in WAPDA, the petitioners cannot be allowed to argue that he was not a workman or that the findings recorded by the Tribunals below are incorrect. It may be mentioned here that the petitioners must be in possession of the entire record of the duties assigned to respondent No, 1 and from its non-production in evidence by the petitioners, a presumption can safely be raised that if produced it would not have supported the petitioners.
5. The findings of the learned Punjab Appellate Tribunal that even if respondent No, 1 was given benefit of doubt and acquitted in the criminal case, he could not be deprived of benefits on reinstatement in service has not also been successfully met by the learned counsel for the petitioners. No law or the rule has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners that once having been acquitted and reinstated respondent No, 1 could be deprived of consequential benefits for the period he remained suspended merely because the acquittal was not honourable or that it was based on benefit of doubt. The findings of the learned Punjab Appellate Tribunal do not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional defect.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also could not satisfy me that the Managing Director (Power) was a competent authority under the rules to pass the order impugned by respondent No, 1 before the Tribunals below. He referred to Rule 2 of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (Delegation of Powers) Rules, 1970. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that ordinarily in respect of employees of WAPDA the competent authority as defined in clause 3 and 7 of Schedule of these rules for passing the order of the nature passed in this case would have been the Chief Engineer and not the Managing Director (Power). He, however, relied upon proviso to rule 2 in which it has been provided that if the competent authority mentioned in columns 3 to 7 of the Schedule was not a civil servant on deputation with WAPDA, then the competent authority would be the next higher officer at any higher stage in the same hierarchy who is a civil servant on deputation with WAPDA. The precise argument was that so far as the Civil servants on deputation with WAPDA were concerned, in respect of them the competent authority designated in the rules was to be a person who was civil servant on deputation with WAPDA and since respondent No, 1 being civil servant was on deputation with WAPDA, therefore, qua him the competent authority was not the Chief Engineer because he was not a civil servant on deputation with WAPDA as such the higher officer at the higher stage was the Managing Director (Power) who was a civil servant on deputation with WAPDA, as such, he was competent authority and was empowered to pass the impugned order against respondent No,
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not support this argument with reference to any document that the Chief Engineer in fact was not a civil servant on deputation with WAPDA or that the Managing Director (Power) was a civil servant who was on deputation with WAPDA. He generally argued that all the members of the WAPDA are taken from Government servants therefore, the Managing Director (Power) may be assumed to be a civil servant on deputation with WAPDA.
7. This contention has little merit. The findings of the learned Appellate Tribunal have been specifically recorded against the petitioners on this question and the petitioners failed to place on record any document to displace the said findings which are findings of fact and cannot be substituted by finding of this Court in Constitutional jurisdiction in particular when there is no material brought on the record in support of the argument.
8. Respondent No, 1 as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as already retired from service on having attained the age of superannuation. he amount in dispute granted to respondent No, 1 is only Rs,7,800. He has been ragged in litigation since 20-7-1986 when the above mentioned criminal case was registered against him in which he was acquitted. Taking into consideration all these circumstances, and for the foregoing reasons, no case has been made out for interference by this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The writ petition fails which is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.