DECISION ' This appeal arises from order of the Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the application of Registrar, Trade Unions for cancellation of the registration of National Savings Staff Union was allowed.
2. The Registrar Trade Unions, Government of Sindh, erroneously registered the Trade Union of National Savings Staff under section 9 of the I.R.O., 1969. The Registrar, on finding his mistake, filed application under section 10 in the 5th Sindh Labour Court, Karachi for cancellation of the Registration in contravention of the provisions of the I.R.O. Under clause (b) of subsection (3) of section 1, the I.R.O. Shall not apply to any person employed in the Administration of the State.
Exceptions have specifically Stated in favour of Railways, Post, Telegraphs and Telephone Department etc. Under the proviso to Order 1(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968: "Nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to Industrial and Commercial Establishments carried on by or under the authority of the Federal or any Provincial Government where Statutory Rules of Service, conduct or discipline are applicable to the workmen employed therein."
' Employees of Federal Government are persons holding posts in connection with the affairs of the Federation i.e, persons falling under the definition of civil servants as given in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 are thus excluded from the operation of the I.R.O. And the Standing Orders Ordinance as Service Tribunal would have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of a civil servant. A Labour Court's jurisdiction is barred under section 3(2), Service Tribunals Act, 1973. A 'civil servant' is defined under section 2(b) as 'person who is a Member of an All-Pakistan Service or of a civil service of the Federation who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation'. Under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Service Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain any petition of a civil servant in respect of the terms and conditions of his service and jurisdiction of all other Courts including the High Court is barred. Thus, the Service Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the cases of civil servants in respect of terms and conditions of their services.
3. The Labour Court, relying on the majority judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Fakir Muhammad v. The Director of National Savings reported in PLD 1992 SC 127, accepted the application of the Registrar for cancellation of the licence of the appellants union being contrary to law, as the Staff of National Savings came under the definition of a civil servant. Against this decision the National Savings Staff Union has preferred this appeal.
4. Mr. S.P. Lodhi on behalf of the Staff Union, has argued that members of the Staff of the National Savings Directorate, Karachi, could not be said to be persons "in the Administration of the State" as held in the dissenting judgment of Abdul Shakurul Salam, J., in the above reported case of the Supreme Court, as the expression 'Administration of the State" is to be interpreted in the limited and narrow sense of the practical management and direction of the executive machinery or the operation of the various organs of the Sovereign or the conducting or carrying on of the details of the Government" as this was also the decision of the Sindh High Court in 1975 PLC 361. The dissenting judgment however has not the binding effect. The learned Chief Justice, however, adopted the view that he could not agree to the narrow interpretation regarding Administration of the State. That the sovereignty in the State does not reside in the Executive. The Department of National Savings is administering the Savings Branch of the State Administration. It is an 'attached Department' of the Federal Government. The learned Chief Justice, therefore, remarked that I would not venture to hold the view expressed by my learned brother that the appellant was a Chowkidar in an attached Department and by no stretch of imagination can be said to he employee in the Administration of the State in terms of clause (b) of subsection (3) of section 1 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
5. Due to this difference of opinion the appeal was referred to the Third Judge Saad Saood Jan, .1. It was held: "It is not disputed that the Central Directorate of National Savings is an attached Department of the Ministry of Finance in the Federal Government. Thus, the persons serving in the Central Directorate arc the direct employees of the Federal Government.
' In this case as is very clear from the letter of appointment, the appellant was to be governed by the rules applicable to Government servants. That being so he belonged to the category of employees to whom the Ordinance did not extend. Consequently-he could not take advantage of Standing Order 12(3) to challenge his removal from service, before the Labour Court."
6. There is yet another aspect of the matter. 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), Service 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 order of the Labour Courts 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".
7. Since it has been clearly held that the employees of the Directorate of Savings came under the definition of 'civil servants' and the Service Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of their service the Labour Courts were not competent to entertain their petitions under the I.R.O.
8. Under the circumstances section 9 of the I.R.O. Did not apply to their case and their Union could not be registered under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The application of the Registrar of Trade Unions for cancellation of registration was, therefore, rightly allowed. The decision of the Labour Court is, therefore, maintained and the appeal is dismissed.