1. ' This Constitutional petition is directed against a decision dated 30-7-1987 given by Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal (hereafter to be mentioned as the Tribunal) in Appeal No, HYD-144 of 1986, maintaining Labour Court, Hyderabad's Order dated 30-4-1986 which has also been assailed.
2. ' Admittedly respondent No, 1 Muhammad Akram was Postman in service of Pakistan Post Office till his removal from service ordered on 14-4-1984. Before his removal from service the respondent No, 1 was working as Postman, Sugar Mills Post Office, Mirpurkhas, where he performed his duty till 29- 10-1983. Under a Memo dated 14-11-1983 the respondent No, 1 was placed under suspension. Later on he was charge-sheeted under Memo. Dated 20-11-1983, with an allegation that he had struck with "Khurdam" the Sub-Postmaster, Tando Jam on 4-10-1983. Respondent No, 1 denied the charges under the reply dated 5-12-1985. He was issued second charge-sheet under Memo. Dated 22-2- 1984 after departmental enquiry and he refuted the charges under his written defence statement dated 27-3-1984. Ultimately under a memo. Dated 14-4-1984 respondent No, 1 was removed from service. On receiving order about removal from service, respondent No, 1 sent grievance notice dated11-7-1984 to the petitioner but the same was not replied. Thereafter the respondent No, 1 filed Grievance Application No, 188 of 1984 in the Labour Court, Hyderabad seeking adjudication that the order about his removal from service is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and mala fide.
3. Respondent No,1 challenged the charge-sheet issued against him to be time-barred, illegal and ultra vires.
4. ' Main contention of the respondent No, 1 in his' grievance application was that he was a permanent "workman" as per section 2(i) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (hereafter to be mentioned as the Standing Orders Ordinance) read with Item XIII of Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act. In respect of his absence from 30-10-1983, respondent No, 1 explained that after performing duty on 29-10-1983 he fell ill and requested the Assistant Superintendent, Post Offices, at Mirpurkhas for medical leave with effect from 30-10-1983 but he was suspended from said date and then charge-sheeted on 20-11-1983 on allegation of having beat a Sub-Postmaster.
5. ' Grievance application was opposed by the petitioner, who in the reply statement denied application of section 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance to the respondent No,
1. It was alleged that the respondent No, 1 absented himself from duty from 30-10-1983 on anticipating disciplinary action due to misbehaviour with a Government Officer on 4-10-1983 during latter's duty hours. The inquiry proceedings against the respondent No, 1 were said to have been conducted under the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1960 and not under the (E&D) Rules of 1973. The charge-sheet was defended to be valid and legal. In the departmental proceedings the respondent No,1 was afforded an opportunity could not refute the charges of misconduct, as added.
6. ' After recording evidence, the Labour Court, Hyderabad under an order dated 30-4-1986 accepted the grievance application and ordered re-instatement of the respondent No,
1. The petitioner filed Appeal No, Hyd-144 of 1986 challenging order of the Labour Court dated 30-4-1986. Under the decision dated 30-7-1987 the Tribunal maintained order of the Labour' Court and dismissed the appeal.
7. ' Hence this Constitutional petition.
8. ' Mr. Sultan Ahmed Khan learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the employees of Post Offices are governed by Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1960 despite promulgation of Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973. It was conceded that Rule 11 of said Rules 1973 repeals the Rules of 1960, but it was contended that such repeal applied only in respect of the Government servant and that repeal did not apply to the respondent No, 1 who was governed by said Rules 1960 even in 1986. It was further argued that a postman serving in connection with affairs of Federation was a civil servant. The impugned order against the respondent No, 1 was said to have been passed under said Rules of 1960. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited the cases of:
(i) Abdul Jamil v. Registrar of Trade Unions, West Pakistan and another (PLD 1971 Lah. 220);
(ii) Muhammad and another v. Divisional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division (PLD 1966 Kar. 424).
9. ' Mr. Fasahat Hussain learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 referred to a letter dated 20-11-1983 issued by the Assistant Superintendent, Post Offices and argued that under said letter an Enquiry Officer was appointed under Rule 5(2) of E&D Rules of 1973 and as such action taken under the E&D Rules of 1960 was illegal. Learned counsel further argued that while conducting enquiry against the respondent No, 1, the principles of natural justice were not followed and that at the start of the enquiry the statement of respondent No, 1 was recorded and thereafter he was cross-examined by a representative of the post office. It was further argued that the respondent No, 1 was not heard, before his removal from service under the order dated 14-4-1984. In support learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 cited the cases of:
(i) Project Director, Karkhana Alaat-e-Zari, Bahawalpur v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court and others (PLD 1989 SC 152);
(ii) Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Abdul Ghani (1983 SCMR 769);
(iii) C.E. Gibbon and others v. Pakistan (PLD 1957 Kar. 956);
(iv) Saifi Development Corporation Ltd. v. Workers' Union (PLD 1965 Kar. 347);
(v) Mst. Mahmuda Khatun v. Muhammad Habibur Rehman and others (PLD 1965 Dacca 358) and
(vi) Syed Byramji D. Mama v. Abdul Qadir and others (PLD 1968 SC 286).
10. ' While ordering re-instatement of the respondent No, 1 the Labour Court took view that the respondent No, 1 was governed by the Standing Orders Ordinance that the charge-sheet served on the respondent No, 1 was times-barred and that the enquiry was not held against the respondent No, 1 in accordance with the settled procedure and lastly that no witness in respect of the incident was examined in the enquiry. Under the impugned decision learned Tribunal agreed with the Labour Court that the respondent No, 1 was a workman under the Standing Orders Ordinance and that the charge-sheet was served on 20-11-1983 in respect of the misconduct having occurred on 4-10-1983 and that conclusion of the Labour Court in respect of holding of the domestic enquiry was correct.
11. ' In a Constitutional petition this Court is left with a very limited jurisdiction to interfere with a finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. In the case of Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited v. Ejaz Ahmed Abbasi (1990 SCMR 1713) it was held that where the Labour Appellate Tribunal has appraised the evidence, it was within its domain to arrive at a finding of fact and the High Court in exercising Constitutional jurisdiction cannot appraise the evidence and travel beyond its allotted sphere. Hence this Court cannot disagee with the view taken by the Tribunal and by the Labour Court that there is no evidence on record to show that the charge against the respondent No, 1 has been established in any manner.
12. ' Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No,1 was a civil servant and was covered by the definition given under clause (b) of section 2 of Civil Servants Act, is without any substance. According to sub-clause (iii) below clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 2 of Civil Servants Act, a person who is a "worker" . Or "workman" as defined in the Factories Act or in the Workmen's Compensation Act is, not a civil servant. Respondent No,1 was admittedly a postman with outdoor duty in the Posts and Telegraph Department. He is, therefore, covered by clause (xiii) of Schedule II below Workmen's Compensation Act. Consequently he is not a civil servant.
13. ' As regards applicability of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, it is to be appreciated that the respondent No, 1 is not a civil servant and consequently he is not governed by the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 which have repealed similar Rules of 1960. In this situation case of the respondent No, 1 is covered by the first proviso below subsection (4) of section 1 of the said Ordinance. Respondent No,1 is employed in the Posts and Telegraph Department which has now become a corporation and it is a 'Commercial establishment' as defined by clause (b) of section 2 of the said Ordinance. All this shows that case of the respondent No, 1 is covered by the said Ordinance.
14. ' For the foregoing reasons we are of the view that the petitioner has not made out case for interference with the impugned order. Consequently we decline to exercise our Constitutional jurisdiction and dismiss this petition with no order as to costs.