1. In this appeal by Mr. Abdul Hamid, against Vice-Chairman, Pakistan Railway Board, Lahore Divisional Superintendent and Assistant Personnel Officer, Compulsory Retirement Order No. E182 dated 2nd July, 1959 confirm--ed in appeal, set aside by Vice-Chairman on 10th June, 1969 yet restored sub--sequently by the Railway Board on 23rd October, 1970 is being challenged as void and illegal.
2. Details of the order and other facts leading to the same need not be re---capitulated because of preliminary objection by the counsel for respondents that appellant not being a Civil Servant within the meaning of section 2(b) of Civil Servants Act, 1973, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain his appeal.
3. In this connection, the only fact that needs be pointed out is that the appellant was a Booking Clerk.
4. Grade-II at Nakus Railway Station at the time of his compulsory retirement from service. After order of re-instatement was vacated by the Railway Board, Civil Suit No. 15 of 1972 was filed in the Court of Additional District Judge, Quetta wherein plea of abatement agitate specifically was contested by the appellant on the ground of his being 'Workman'. The issue was decided in the affirmative to allow the suit being heard and finally decided against the appellant. These are the only two material facts which will determine fate of the present appeal. Section 2(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 defines a 'Workman' as any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than fair the purpose of the employer's trade or business) who is a railway servant notpermanently employed in any administrative, District or Sub-Divisional office of the Railway.
5. The appellant does not claim to have been employed otherwise than on the Railway Station and the employment of a Booking Clerk is cot included in Schedule II. Thus he would boa 'workman' within the moaning of sec--tion 21l)(n) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and would stand excluded This fact was also admitted by the appellant himself before the Additional District Judge, Quetta who accept the plea to proceed to judgment. Mere admission before a civil Court would not exclude reagitation of a law pint. Yet the judgment correctly interpreting the Civil Servants Act, no a gained by reopening the issue advantage is. Preliminary issue is decided against the appellant.
6. Appeal is not entertain able. It is dismissed with costs, which is worked out at Rs. 100.