DECISION ' This appeal has been remanded to this Tribunal by the High Court Bench sitting at Sukkur, to determine status of the petitioner and then to dispose of the appeal according to law.
2. The facts, in brief, are that appellant Aftab Alam Khan was an employee in Pakistan Railways and was posted as Primary School Teacher in Railways Boys High School, Sukkur. He was, thereafter, promoted to Scale No,9 but a post fell vacant in the Secondary School the appellant's claim to promotion was overlooked and someone else was appointed in that vacancy. The appellant filed his grievance application in the Labour Court at Sukkur under section 25-A of the I.R.O.
3. The Labour Court held that the school run by the Railway Department was not an Industrial or Commercial establishment and the school teacher was not a workman and that his grievance application was not, therefore, maintainable as section 25-A of the I.R.O. Was not applicable in his case
4. The appellant being in service of the Railways as a school teacher is a Member of civil service of the Federation holding a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation. He is, therefore, to be regarded as a civil servant under section 2(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The terms and conditions of civil servants are to be determined as provided on the Civil Servants Act and the rules. All the cases of Railways employees are governed by the Railway Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. All the disputes of the civil servants in respect of their terms and conditions of service are to be adjudicated by the Service Tribunals. Under section 3(2) a Tribunal shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants. Thus, the jurisdiction of all the Courts, including the High Court, is barred and only the decision of Service Tribunal would prevail subject to appeals from its decision lying to the Supreme Court.
5. Under subsection (3) of section 2(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 exception has been made in case of a worker or workman as defined in the Factories Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Under section 2(n) of the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 a workman is defined to be any person who is a Railway servant as defined in section 3 of the Railways Act, not permanently employed in any administrative district or Sub-Divisional Office of a Railway and not employed in any such capacity which is specified in Schedule II or employed on monthly wages not exceeding Rs,1,500. These employees who are included in this Schedule or those employed in connection with the operation or maintenance of the Railway or in the Railway Workshop performing out-door duties are workmen, but a School Master has not been included in Schedule II attached to section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
6. Nor does a School Master came within the definition of workman under section 2(h) of the Factories Act. The workers employed in manufacturing process came under this definition and even the clerks have been excluded.
7. Employees not falling in the category of worker or workman would all be civil servants and excluded from the jurisdiction of the Courts other than Service Tribunals as held in the case of Akbar Ali v. Pakistan Railways reported in 1992 SCM R 1341. The dispute relating to their terms and conditions of service or fixation of pay will not be within the purview of a Labour Court.
8. In PLD 1981 SC 172 Mufti Mushtaq Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan it was held by Supreme Court that civil servants appointed as Ticket Collector in Railways but performing the duties of Clerical nature in office of Station Master did not fall within the definition of workman and only the Service Tribunal possess jurisdiction to deal with their case. In PLD 1992 SC 127 Faqir Muhammad v. Director of National Savings it was held: ' that as an employee of the Federal Government he held a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation. Thus, he was 'a civil servant within the definition of the term as given in the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Under section 3(2), Services Tribunals Act, 1973, the Federal Service Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of a civil servant.
On account of the bar contained in Article 212(2) of the Constitution, the Labour Courts were not competent to entertain the appellant's petition. In the circumstances the orders of the Labour Court and the Appellate Tribunal must be held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, I would support the judgment of the learned Chief Justice, although on grounds of my own.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs."
9. In the light of the law applicable to Railway employees and the decisions of the Supreme Court quoted above the appellant School Master cannot be held to be a workman for the purpose of Labour Laws. The Labour Court at Sukkur had no jurisdiction to entertain his grievance petition and the same was rightly rejected. The decision of the lower Court is maintained and the appeal is dismissed.