1. ' The appellant feels aggrieved of the judgment dated 16-5-1993 of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Peshawar whereby petition moved by the respondent under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was accepted and the petitioner was re-instated in service with back benefits.
2. ' The events which led to the filing of the grievance petition are that the petitioner-respondent was employed by Workers Welfare Board under the appellant and at the relevant time was posted as Chowkidar in Labour Colony, Amangarh. The petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 4-3-1992 which was impugned through the instant grievance petition. At the trial of the case before the Presiding Officer the petitioner appeared as P.W.1 in support of his stance and reiterated the allegations as contained in the grievance petition. Besides that he also stated that "The services of another person were also terminated but he was later on reinstated in service in spite of the fact that he was junior to me". The case was fixed for the evidence of the respondent-appellant on 13-1- 1993 but as on that date the counsel for the respondent-appellant was busy in High Court, therefore, on his application the case was adjourned to 1-2-1993. On the latter date the case was deferred to 28-2-1993 as the evidence of the respondent-appellant was not present. On 28-2-1993 the Presiding Officer was not present and so it was adjourned to 15-3-1993. On this date the evidence of the respondent-appellant was again absent and so they were directed to produce evidence on 14-4-1993. However, on the latter date also the respondent-appellant failed to produce their evidence and so they were afforded last opportunity to produce evidence on 16-5- 1993. On 16-5-1993 the respondent-appellant again could not produce evidence and so the case was decided against them through the impugned judgment as there was no rebuttal to the evidence of the petitioner.
3. ' The learned counsel appearing for the appellant was not in a position to rebut the factual aspect of the case as is clear from the order-sheets of the Labour Court and referred to above. He, however, argued that the Court was required to have determined as to whether the petitioner- respondent was a workman or not. He submitted that the respondent is a public servant in terms of section 8(4) of the Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971 and, therefore, the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance would not apply. This submission has no force as the mere fact that the employees of the appellant have been given the status of a public servant in terms of section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code would neither make them civil servants nor would debar the application of the labour laws. There is nothing in the Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance which excludes the jurisdiction of the labour laws to the employees of the appellant. Moreover, in a judgment reported as 1983 SCM R 769 it has been laid down: "There is no provision in the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886, which can be read to exclude the applicability of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and for that matter section 25-A of the Ordinance, it is true that an appeal is provided under section 23 of the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886, but there is no apparent bar against the availability of section 25-A of the Ordinance; and ought it be said that the two remedies are available, side by side, as prima facie the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by its scope, overreaches an establishment which satisfies the definitions of employer, worker or workman and the establishment". The same view was taken in a Supreme Court judgment reported as 1993 PLC 595. In any case, the culpable negligence demonstrated from the side of the appellant in the proceedings before the Labour Court cannot be condoned and as the evidence led by the respondent has not been rebutted, therefore, there is no justification for interference in the impugned decision and accordingly this appeal is dismissed with costs.