MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.- This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 8823/91, 9352/91, 4595/91, 6135/91, 8063/91, 8068/91, 8069/91, 9483/91 & 6992/91 as similar contoversy involved therein.
2. The sole question which requires adjudication in these petition is as to whether the jurisdiction of Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 can be invoked by an employee of Pakistan Railways who has been declared to be an employer tinder the special provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) 1968.
3. In view of the nature of the controversy it is not necessary to state the facts of each case in detail, Suffice it to say that the petitioners in all these petitions are working in supervisory capacity on wages exceeding Rs.800/- per month in Pakistan Railways Carriage & Work Shop Mughalpura.
They had invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 by filing applications which are primarily relatable to their seniority alleging that an industrial dispute had arisen. Some of these petitions were allowed by the Labour Court while others were dismissed. Ultimately the matter came to the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which vide its impugment/orders has held that the petitioners were not workmen and being employed in the administration of State, the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not applicable to them in view of section 1(3) thereof.
4. In support of these petitions, Mr. SA. Latif, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as the petitioners were declared "employers" under the special provisions of sub-clause (d) of clause (viii) of section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the view taken by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal that Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not applicable to them was not correct. It was further argued by the learned counsel that in any case, as the petitioners were employed in a factory they were workmen within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Factories Act, 1934 and as such the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 could be invoked by them. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on Sind Road Transport Corporation and 2 others Vs. Staff Union and 2 others (1975 PLD 361), Project Director, Co-operative Charkhana Alat-e-Zari, Bahawalpur Vs. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court, Multan & six others (NLR1979 Labour 56), Abdul Jamil Vs. Registrar of Trade Unions, West Pakistan, Lahore & another (PUD 1971 Lah. 220) and Workers' Union Vs. Sind Government Press, Karachi and 2 others (1980 PLD 244).
5. Mr. Fazal-i-Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, argued that those employees of the Pakistan Railways who are not "workmen" are civil servants within the meaning of the Civil Servants Act, 1974 and as such the only competent forum in which they could adjudicate their grievance with regard to the terms and conditions of their service was the Service Tribunal constituted under the Service Tribunals Act, 1974. In this respect the learned counsel has relied upon Faqir Muhammad Vs. The Director of National Savings, Multan Region, Multan (PLD 1992 S.C. 127), Muhammad Rashid Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi & another (PU 1984 Tr. C.
(Service 209) and Akbar Ali & others Vs. Senior Administrative Officer (1992 S.C.M.R. 1341).
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that even a dispute between employers inter-se can be taken to a Labour Court by filing an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and, therefore, it is not essential that one of the parties to the dispute should be a workman.
7. The assertion that a dispute between an 'employer and 'employee' can be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 may be correct, but it hardly advances the case of the petitioners for the question here is, can the persons working in the, Pakistan Railways, whether as employers or employees invoke the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, section 1(3) of which to the extent it is relevant reads that:- 1(3) It shall not apply to any person employed:-
(a) .................................................... (b) in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen by the Railway, Posts, Telegraph and Telephone departments; or
8. From a bare reading of above, it is obvious that persons employed in the Pakistan Railways cannot have recourse to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 except those who are workmen. It thus become necessary to find out as to whether the petitioners are workmen. Section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 reads: "Worker"; and "workman" means any person not falling within the definition of employer who is employed (including employment as a supervisor or as an apprentice) in an establishment or industry for hire or reward either directly or through a contractor whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Ordinance in relation to an proceeding under this Ordinance in relation to an industrial dispute includes a person who has been dismissed, discharged, retrenched laid-off or otherwise removed from employment in connection with or as a consequence of. That dispute or whose dismissal, discharge, retrenchment, lay-off, or removal has led to that dispute, but does not include any person:-
(a) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(b) who being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding rupees eight hundred per mensem or performs, either because of the nature of duties attached in the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of managerial nature."
9. On the on showing of the petitioners they have been declared as employers under the special provision of sub-clause (d) of clause (viii) of section 2 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and are, therefore, clearly outside the purview of this definition. Another reason as to why the petitioners cannot be considered as workmen is that they have been employed in the supervisory capacity and are drawing emoluents of more than Rs.800/- per mensem. Even the learned counsel for the petitioners did not claim that the petitioners were workmen within the meaning of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. That being so, as the petitioners are working in the Pakistan Railways and are employed in the administration of State not as workmen, the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 have no application to them. (See The Controller, Stationery and Forms, Government of Pakistan Vs. The Registrar, Trade Unions Sindh and others (PLD 1991 S.C353) and Akbar Ali & others Vs. Senior Administrative Officer (1992 SCMR1341).
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that if such an interpretation is adopted, it would render section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as negatory. I am unable to agree moth the learned counsel. Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 can be invoked by an 'employer or an 'employee as the case may be except those who are hit by the mischief of section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
11. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they were workmen within the Factories Act, 1934 is hardly of any relevance. The petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and as they were not workmen within the meaning of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and were employed in the Administration of State, the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 had no application and they could not have invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under that Ordinance.
In view of what has been stated above, the view taken by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is perfectly in accord with the law and calls for no interference. All these petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.