1. {{PAGES MISS IN BOOK}} post in connection with the affairs of the Federation, including any such post connected with defence but does not include-- '
2. (i)
3. (ii)
(iii) a person who is a "worker" or "workman" as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934) or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923): Section 2(a) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 reads as under:-- "(2)
(a) ' Civil servant' means ' a person who is, or has been a civil servant' within the meaning of Civil Servants Act, 1973 (LXXI of 1973)."
4. ' In view of above the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 incorporated in it, by reference to, the definition of the term "civil servant" as defined in the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Act No, XVII of 1997 has brought amendment by adding section 2-A to the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 which is as under:-- "2-A. Service under certain corporation, etc. To be service of Pakistan.---Service under any Authority, corporation, body or organization established by or under a Federal Law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has a controlling share or interest is hereby declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under such authority, corporation, body or organization shall be a civil servant for the purposes of this Act."
5. ' The wordings of the above amendment/addition/insertion indicates that it is a deeming clause which includes every person holding a post under such authority as defined in the said section. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that since the definition of "worker" and "workmen" remains the same which have been excluded from the definition of the "civil servant" and as no amendment has been brought in the Factories Act, 1934 or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 the services of worker/workman still remains excluded from the purview of the amending section entitling the worker to come to this Court by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction instead of approaching the Service Tribunal. The two important terms used in the amendment and relevant herein are 'post' and 'civil servant'.
6. ' First we will deal with the word 'post'. The word 'post' has not been defined in the Civil Servants Act or any of the other laws, rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. However, the word 'post' has been defined under section 2(a) of N.-W.F.P. Public Servants (Regulations of Services) Act, 1988 as:-- "'post' means a post under Government or in connection with the affairs of Government to be filled in on the recommendation of Commission' ."
7. ' In our opinion the above definition has been given in context with N.-W.F.P. Public Servants (R & S)
8. Act and concerns only those Government posts which are filled on recommendation of Government.
9. ' Now taking the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word "post"; according to Corpus Juris Secundum (Volume 72) the word 'inter alia' is defined as:-- "The word 'post' is also defined as meaning an office or employment; a position, as a trust or emolument; situation; especially, a public office; ' In this sense the word 'post' has been held to be synonymous with 'office' ."
10. ' The word 'office' has been defined by Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (4th Edition, page 1830) as under:-- " 'office' was held to be apt word to describe the position of trustee, or any position in which services are due by the holder and in which the holder had no employer."
11. ' Wharton's Law Lexicon (14th Edition, page 711) defines 'office' as:-- "The word 'office' has been defined as an employment, either judicial, municipal, civil, military or ecclesiastical."
12. In the same book the word 'post' has been defined as:-- "The term 'post' means the place and position in service held by him."
13. ' All the above-referred definitions indicate that the word 'post' as well as the word 'office' has various meaning but commonly used for a position being held by a person. A common example of this will be when advertisements are given for recruitment of employees in different categories it is mentioned as 'posts' which can be for a Chowkidar or for an engineer.
14. ' Thus to determine as to whether a particular employee is a civil servant or in the service of Pakistan for the purpose of ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution, definition under section 2(1)(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 as well as amended provision contained in the amended section 2(a) of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, will have to be referred to.
15. One of the cardinal rules of interpretation of statute is that the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words used by the Legislature in expressing its intention is to be adhered to. If literal adherence to the words of any enactment appears to produce an absurdity or an injustice, it will be the duty of a Court, so interpreting, to consider the state of the law at the time the Act was passed with the view to ascertaining whether the language of the enactment is capable of another fair interpretation or whether it may not be desirable to put upon the language used, a restrictive meaning. The first rule of construing any enactment is to give the words their natural meaning and it is only if no reasonable result can be arrived at by giving the words their natural meaning that some other interpretation is permissible.
16. ' Further, when phraseology of the law is changed by an amendment the presumption will be that some change in the law is intended. It is an ordinary rule of construction that a change of language in the same code or Act may be presumed to indicate a change of intention on the part of the Legislature.
17. ' In the present case neither phraseology has been changed nor any amendment in the definition is made but a new subsection has been added keeping the existing section intact.
18. ' Keeping the principles of interpretation in mind, it seems that the intention/object of the Legislature in bringing the amendment is to end as far as possible, conflict if any of old decisions and provide one forum for all employees of Corporations, as mentioned in the amending enactment.
19. ' In the light of the above, if we look at section 2(a) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, after the amendment, it stands as follows:-- "2(a). ' Civil servant' means a person who is, or has been, a civil servant within the meaning of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 (LXXI of 1973) and shall include a person declared to be a civil servant under section 2-A."
20. Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act reads as under:-- "2-A. Service under certain corporations, etc. To be service of Pakistan.---Service under any authority, corporation, body or organization established by or under a Federal Law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government has a controlling share or interest is hereby declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under such authority, corporation, body or organization shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purpose of this Act."
21. ' The position clearly indicates the object of the amendment i,e, the service of all the employees holding a post in any corporation, body or organization will be deemed to be civil servant for the purposes of seeking grievances from one and one Forum alone i,e, Service Tribunal.
22. ' The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the case of Sher Mahmood v. Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal (1995 PLC 188), wherein the question was whether a postman is a workman or a civil servant and if the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding the postman as a civil servant. It was held that "a workman is not a civil servant and that a postman is decidedly a workman".
23. ' Another case relied on was the case of Mst. Nargis Nazar v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan (1992 PLC 58) wherein the question was raised whether a Special Ticket Examiner is a worker within the meaning of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 or a civil servant within the meaning of Civil Servants Act, 1973, and it was held that the petitioner (Special Ticket Examiner) was not a 'civil servant'. It was observed as:-- "When we look into the definition of civil servant given in the Civil Servants Act, we find that the employees falling within the exceptions are not civil servants. The exceptions are that the employees, who are covered by the definition of workman given in the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Factories Act, are not civil servants so not all the employees of WAPDA but only those who do not come within the exceptions are to be deemed to be civil servants."
24. ' In the case of WAPDA v. Muhammad Ashraf Naeem (1997 SCM R 1128), Muhammad Ashraf Naeem, who was an employee of WAPDA, approached the Labor Court which allowed his claim against WAPDA and ordered his reinstatement.
25. ' In appeal it was contended on behalf of WAPDA that in view of section 17(1-B) of Water and Power Development Authority, 1958, the services under the appellant have been declared to be Service of Pakistan. The appellant has framed statutory rules of Efficiency and Discipline for recruitment. The appellant is a statutory corporation functioning under the Authority of the Federal Government and for these reasons proviso to Standing Order 1(4)(c) was attracted and the applicability of the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance was altogether excluded. It will be interesting to reproduce the said proviso:-- "Provided that nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to Industrial and Commercial Establishment 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 workman employed therein."
26. ' Section 17(1-B) of the WAPDA Act reads as under:-- "Service under the Authority is hereby declared to be Service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under the Authority, not being a person who is on deputation to the Authority from any province, shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purpose of Service Tribunals Act."
27. ' But, the Court considering section 2(b)(iii) of Civil Servants Act, 1973, declared the petitioner as workman as exempted under the law and, as such, the appeal was dismissed. Section 17(1-B) of the WAPDA Act is similar to amended/added subsection (2-A).
28. ' The case-law cited by the learned counsel though pertains to cases decided by the Courts before the amendment was introduced but the observation made while deciding the case of Mst. Nargis Nazar and Muhanunad Ashraf Naeem are very pertinent keeping in view the language of the two provisions which is similar.
29. ' In the case of Executive Engineer v. Abdul Aziz PLD 1996 SC 610 the employees of P.W.D. Who were engaged on work-charge basis for construction had filed application under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Before the learned Labour Court, Balochistan inter alia requesting for reinstatement. The Department filed various legal objection as regard to the maintainability of the application and denying that the employees are permanent employees as workmen. The Labour Court came to conclusion that the applicants were permanent employees and the termination of their services was illegal. Appeals were filed by the department and subsequently Constitutional petitions were filed which were dismissed in limine. Petition for leave to appeal was granted. It was contended on behalf of the employees that they were not covered by the definition of the term civil servant given in subsection (1) of section 2 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 by virtue of clause (iii) thereof and were covered by definition of workers/workmen given in section 2(1) of the Standing Orders Ordinance and section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.
30. ' One of the three points for consideration was:
(i) Whether the respondents are civil servants in terms of section 2(1)(b) of the Act?
31. ' It was observed and held as under:-- - "It seems that the respondents are not covered by the definition of worker' given in section 2(h) of the Factories Act, 1934, as they are not employed directly or through an agency in any manufacturing process or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process, or in any other kind of work whatsoever, incidental to or connected with the subject of the manufacturing process, whether for wages or not, whereas the definition of worknian' given in section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, appears to be very wide in its scope A perusal of the definition shows that 'workman' means any person other than a person whose employment is of casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employer's trade or business. The definition includes railway servant as defined in section 3 of the Railways Act, 1890 not permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub- divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as specified in Schedule II. It also includes persons employed on monthly wages not exceeding three thousand rupees in such capacity as is specified in Schedule II. It may be noticed that the proviso to the above sub-clause
(ii) of clause (n) lays down that it does not make any difference whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of the said Act and whether such contract is express or implied, oral or in writing. It may be pointed out that originally the above proviso excluded any person working in the capacity of a member of His Majesty and in Indian service.
32. ' The above amendments were made by Ordinance No, XXVII of 1981 and by Amending Ordinance No, XXVIII of 1937 respectively. It may also be stated that Item 8 of the II Schedule referred to in the above clause includes within the definition of 'workman' the persons employed in the construction, repair or demolition of any building or \structure, any dam or embankment which is 20 feet or more in height from its lowest to its highest or any road or tunnel or any work qua, sea-wall or marine work including any moorings of ships. There is long list of the items in the above II Schedule including the persons working in the various walks of life referred to therein for the purpose of including in the definition of 'workman'. It may be observed that prima facie respondents are covered by item No, 8 of the above II Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act and, therefore, they are also excluded from the definition of 'civil servant' on that account. It is, therefore, evident that the respondents cannot be treated as civil servants for the above two reasons."
33. ' In the case of Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution v. National Industrial Relations Commission and others 1988 SCM R 765 while interpreting the phrase 'in the administration of the State' it was observed: "The expression 'administration of the State' is to be interpreted in the limited and narrow sense of the practical management and direction or 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."
34. ' In the case of Faqir Muhammad v. The Director of National Savings, Multan Region PLD 1992 SC 127 it was observed, while deciding the reference as third Judge by Justice Saad Saood Jan while agreeing with one of Hon'ble Judges as under:-- "The appellant undoubtedly is employed in the said Department as a Chowkidar likely any time to guard/protect Government money. The employees of the Supreme Court in this category or for that matter in the Ministries and Departments of the Central Government even if technically be described workmen would, by virtue of the exclusion contained in section 1(3)(b) of the I.R.O., be excluded from the application of the said law.
35. ' Following the test laid down in this judgment I am inclined to agree with my learned brother that the appellant, being a Chowkidar in a Directorate concerned with mobilizing savings in the country, can hardly be described as a person employed in the administration of the State."
36. ' Yet in another case Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan v. Wali Muhammad 1997 SCM R 141 the two expressions civil servant and in the Service of Pakistan have been discussed and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-- "We would like to mention here that from the trend of arguments at the bar it appeared that the two expressions ' Service of Pakistan' and 'civil servants' were treated as synonymous. This in our opinion is not so. Service of Pakistan is defined in Article 260 of the Constitution as meaning, any service, post or office in connection with the affairs of Federation or a Province. This expression also includes an All Pakistan Service and a service in the Armed Forces or any other service declared under an Act of the Parliament or a Provincial Assembly as Service of Pakistan. The term 'civil servant' is defined in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 as a person, who is a member of an All Pakistan Service or of a Civil Service of the Federation or a person holding a civil post in connection with the affairs of Federation, including a civil post connected with the defence. However, a person on deputation to the Federation from any Province or other authority, a person who is employed on contract or on work-charge basis who is paid from contingencies and a person who is ' worker' or 'workman' as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, are expressly excluded from the category of 'civil servant'. On a careful examination of the definitions of 'service of Pakistan' as given in Article 260 of the Constitution and the ' civil servant' as mentioned in the Civil Servants Act, 1973, it would appear that the two expressions are not synonymous. The expression 'Service of Pakistan' used in Article 260 of the Constitution has a much wider connotation than the term 'civil servant' employed in the Civil Servants Act. While a ' civil servant' is included in the expression 'Service of Pakistan' , the vice versa is not true."
37. We have discussed all the above cases in order to ascertain that in spite of the fact that amending clause is a deeming clause whether the categories which were already excluded from the purview of the definition will remain so and have no hesitation in holding that the position remains as before since the amendment was introduced in the Service Tribunals Act. The amending clause being deeming clause all employees "every person" holding a post in a corporation, body or organization as defined by the amending section shall be treated as in Service of Pakistan and deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 providing a forum.
38. ' We have given anxious consideration to the conflict and have reached the conclusion that in the absence of any non obstante clause, any change in phraseology and amendments in the Factories Act and Workmen's Compensation Act while the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (i),
(ii) and (iii) of section 2(1)(b) of the Act remain excluded from the preview of section 2 of the Service Tribunals Act such exclusion, however, does not apply to those in the Service of the Corporations and bodies falling under the amending section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act.
39. ' In the foregoing paras. We have discussed the provisions of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act added/inserted through Act XVII of 1997 as the same being a deeming clause providing a forum to all the employees of corporation, body or organization which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government and has controlling share as having been declared to be in Service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under such authority, corporation, body or organization is deemed to be a civil servant. Article 212 of the Constitution provides an exclusive forum in respect of any matter concerning the terms and conditions of their service.
40. ' Article 212 provides as: -- "212.--(1) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, the appropriate Legislature may by Act (Provide for the establishment of) one or more Administrative Courts or Tribunals to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in respect of--
(a) matters relating to the terms and conditions of persons (who are or have been) in the Service of Pakistan, including disciplinary matters; (b)
41. (c)
(2) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, where any Administrative Court or Tribunal is established under clause (1), no other Court shall grant an injunction, make any order or entertain any proceedings in respect of any matter to which the jurisdiction of such Administrative Court or Tribunal extends (and all proceedings in respect of any such matter which may be pending before such other Court immediately before the establishment of the Administrative Court or Tribunal (other than an appeal pending before the Supreme Court), shall abate on such establishment."
42. By now it is well-settled principle of law that when a case properly falls within the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal, the jurisdiction of all Courts including this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is clearly barred.
43. ' The contention of Mr. Tasneem that the added section 2-A provides forum for all the employees of such corporation as mentioned in the section except those excluded under section 2(1)(b) of the Civil Servants Act has no substance as the contention is against the very spirit of the amending clause.
44. ' In the case of Abdul Bari v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1981 Kar. 290) it was held that "when the entire field of controversy that could possibly arise in respect of an order passed by departmental authority has been committed under constitution to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal then Article 212 clearly bars the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain any part of such controversy in any proceedings". In the case of Muhammad Anis v. Abdul Haseeb (PLD 1994 SC 539) it was held as under:-- "We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the controversy before the High Court was, whether private respondents were eligible for consideration for promotion to Grade-18 as Assistant Collectors along with the private appellants. The above question could not have been decided without reference to the terms on which the private respondents were given higher grade, namely, Grade- 17 upon the up gradation of the posts of Appraiser and the Principal Appraisers pursuant to the above order of the late President Muhammad Ziaul Hach which in turn will involve consideration of the above various notifications, rules relating to the appointment or promotion as Assistant Collectors of Customs and the interpretation of section 23 of the Civil Servants Act etc. The above matters pre-eminently fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal and, therefore, the High Court had wrongly assumed jurisdiction in the present case, which did.Not vest in it."
45. ' In our above opinion, we are fortified by a recent 'unreported judgment passed by another Bench of this Court in Constitution Petition No,259 of 1997 wherein also after detailed discussion and relying on the cases of Abdul Bari v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1981 Kara 290) and Muhammad Anis v. Abdul Haseeb (PLD 1994 SC 539) it has been held as "we are of the opinion that when the Constitution requires a particular kind of controversy to be decided by an exclusive forum the mandate of the Constitution cannot be allowed to be defeated by merely choosing to approach a different forum at a particular point of time".
46. ' In view of above discussion and without going into the merits of the case in our opinion this petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.
47. ' SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, J.---I have gone through the elaborate, exhaustive and painstaking order proposed to be delivered/pronounced by my learned colleague Justice Mrs. Majida Razvi. I am in agreement with the finding of my learned colleague. However, I would like to add something by way of facts of the case and the grounds or the reasons for the aforesaid finding proposed to be pronounced.
48. ' The facts requisite for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner is an employee of respondent M/s. Pakistan Steels Mills Ltd. And claims himself to be a workman as defined in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the Standing Orders Ordinance). He was dismissed by respondent No, 1 from service for misconduct in pursuance of a domestic enquiry conducted under Standing Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The petitioner filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the I.R.O.) in the 4th Sindh Labor Court, Karachi. The Labor Court allowed the petition and ordered re-instatement of the petitioner with full back benefits. Respondent No,1 challenged the said order before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and it upheld the order of the Labor Court only to the extent of reinstatement disallowing the back benefits. Petitioner feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the Labor Appellate Tribunal challenged the same by way of this Constitutional petition.
49. ' The petition came up for hearing before us on 8-10-1997, Mr. M.G. Dastagir, the learned counsel for respondent No, 1 submitted that the petition stood dismissed as having abated as on account of the amendments made in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 by the Service Tribunals (Amendment)
50. Act, 1997, the petitioner has acquired the status of a civil servant, which precludes him from invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court in view of Article 212 of the Constitution and he is required to approach the Service Tribunal for redress of his aforesaid grievance. Mr. Muhammad Tasneem, the learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the above contention and submitted that he continues to be a workman notwithstanding the amendment in section 2 and insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 whereby all the employees of any Authority, Corporation, body or organization established by or under a Federal Law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has a controlling share or interest (hereinafter referred to as such institutions) has been declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under such institutions shall be a civil servant for the purpose of the Service Tribunals Act. Mr. Tasneem's reasoning for his aforesaid contention is that the amendment made in section 2 of Service Tribunals Act by addition of the words 'and shall include a person declared to be a civil servant under section 2-A' is not to operate independently but is subject to or controlled by the qualification contained in section 2(1)(b)(iii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which excludes a person falling within the definition of worker or workman as defined in the Factories Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act, from the definition of the civil servant. He further submitted that in view of the above position, the petitioner continues to be a workman and will be entitled to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court as the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution will not be an obstacle in his way.
51. ' Another ground raised by Mr. Tasneem in support of his contention that the petitioner has not acquired the status of a civil servant is that by virtue of the provision of the newly-added section 2- A in the Service Tribunals Acts only those employees of such institutions who are holding posts are declared to be civil servants. He elaborated his argument and submitted that post denotes a high office or office or position of authority and power and employees employed in such institution for performance of manual or clerical duties or work or the duties enumerated in section 2(h) of the Factories Act or section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act will not be covered by the definition of civil servant provided in section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act. He further submitted that the word 'post' appearing in section 2-A shall be assigned the same meaning as has been assigned to it in section 2(a) of the N.W.F.P. Public Servants (Regulations of Service) Act and a bare perusal of the said meaning is sufficient to conclude that employees of such institutions performing work and duties of manual or clerical nature or those duties as are enumerated in section 2(h) of the Factories Act and section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act are to be excluded from the definition of civil servant and will continue to be treated as workers or workmen.
52. He refuted the contention of Mr. M.G. Dastagir, that the petition has abated and be dismissed as such and submitted that the petition is very much alive and ought to be decided on merits.
53. ' The sole point which falls for determination is whether after the aforesaid amendments in the Service Tribunals Act, the petitioner is to be treated as a civil servant or continues to be a worker or workman, which determination is material for deciding the fate of this petition. Before the aforesaid amendment, section 2 of the Service Tribunals Act, defined a civil servant by borrowing the definition of civil servant from the Civil Servants Act, which is as under:-- "2.
(a) ' Civil servant means a person who is, or has been a civil servant' within the meaning of Civil Servants Act, 1973 (LXXI of 1973)."
54. ' By the Amending Act of 1997 the words "and shall include a person declared to be a civil servant under section 2-A, and" have been added in section 2 and the definition of a civil servant now reads as under:-- "Section 2(a). 'Civil servant' means a person who is, or has been, a civil servant within the meaning of Civil Servants Act, 1973 (LXXI of 1973) and shall include a person declared to be a civil servant under section 2-A."
55. ' It is, thus, to be seen that the definition of civil servants has been enlarged by including the employees of such institutions who have been declared to be civil servants by the newly-inserted section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act. A close examination of the new definition reveals that it defines two distinct and separate categories of civil servants. The first category consists of persons who are members of an All Pakistan Service or of a civil service of the Federation, or who hold civil posts but does not include--
(iii) a person who is a worker or workman as defined in the Factories Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act The second category of civil servants consists of the persons holding posts in such institutions. The second category of civil servants has been declared to be civil servants only for the purpose of the Service Tribunals Act so as to enable them to approach a uniform and exclusive forum for redress of the grievances relating to the terms and conditions of their service.
56. The definition relative to the first category of civil servants is qualified and controlled by the exception clause and those excepted by this clause are not to be treated as civil servants.
57. However, the exception clause would apply only in respect of the first category of civil servants and would have no application in respect of the second category of the civil servants so as to exclude the workers or workman from the definition of civil servants, otherwise the very object of the amendments made in the Service Tribunals Act, which is to provide a uniform and distinct forum for this category of civil servants for redress of their grievances, would be defeated and the amendments would be rendered nugatory. Another reason for non-applicability of exception clause to the second category of civil servants is that the original definition of the first category of civil servants enumerated in the Service Tribunals Act has been borrowed from the Civil Servants Act wherein it has been qualified or abridged by the exception clause, while the definition, of the second category of the civil servants is the one which has been provided in the newly-inserted section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act and has been incorporated in section 2 in addition to the original definition of the civil servants borrowed from the Civil Servants Act. There is no exception or qualification in defining the second category of civil servants by -way of exception of any class of persons/employees from the definition of civil servants hi section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, which unambiguously and without any reservation has declared all persons holding posts in such institutions as civil servants. The second part of the definition appearing in section 2 is, thus, free from any exception or exemption and all persons/employees holding posts in such institutions would be deemed to be civil servants for the purpose of Service Tribunals Act irrespective of the fact that some of them may be workers or workmen as defined in the Factories Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act. There is, thus, no inconsistency, ambiguity or redundancy in interpreting section 2 of the Service Tribunals Act in the aforesaid manner. The two parts of section 2 define two different categories of civil servants and operate in their respective field without coming into conflict or raising any inconsistency and all the employees/persons holding posts in such institutions irrespective of their designation and the nature of the duties and the functions performed by them will be deemed to be civil servants.
58. ' The contention of Mr. Tasneem, that the definition of civil servants relative to the persons/employees holding posts in such institutions is controlled by and is subject to the qualification of exception clause (iii) of section 2 of the Civil Servants Act if accepted, resulting in excluding persons/employees falling within the scope of worker or workman as defined in section 2(h) of the Factories Act or section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act from the definition of civil servant, then such interpretation will be in conflict with and repugnant to the provision of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, which declares person holding posts in such institutions to be civil servants without any exception or reservation. In a situation where there is repugnancy in the provisions of two sections of a statute, the settled principle of interpretation is that the latter section prevails. (Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, page 189, Twelfth Edition, by P. St. J.
59. Langan). A Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore in the case of Ahmed Saeed Kirmani v. Ch. Fazal Elahi and others reported in PLD 1956 (W.P.) Lahore 807, faced with a similar situation expressed the view that if two provisions involve an absolute contradiction and it is impossible to construe them together, the former provision must give way to the latter.
60. In the light of aforesaid discussions, I am satisfied beyond any doubt that the words civil servants used in section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act is not subject to the exception or the qualification contained in the exception clause (iii) of section 2 of the Civil Servants Act, and all persons holding posts in such institutions are to be deemed to be civil servants. In view of this principle of interpretation of statutes the above contention of Mr. Tasneem even, if accepted is of no assistance to the petitioner as the provision of earlier section 2 of the Service Tribunals Act will not prevail over the provision of section 2-A (supra) which is latter.
61. ' The next submission made by Mr. Tasneem is that the word 'post' appearing in section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act is to be assigned the meaning as has been assigned to it in section 2(a) of the N.-W.F.P. Public Servants (Regulations of Service) Act. He further submitted that only such persons/employees of such institutions who are holding posts in terms of the above definition would be deemed to be civil servants while all others not covered by the said definition of 'post' would be treated as workers or workmen and would not be required to approach the Service Tribunal for violation of the rights and guarantees made available to him by the Standing Orders Ordinance and other Labour Laws.
62. This aspect of the case has been dealt with at great length by my learned colleague Mrs. Majida Razvi, J. In her judgments proposed order. I am in agreement with her finding that the word "post" appearing in section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act will be assigned its ordinary dictionary meaning and will include every office, assignment job and position held by persons in such institutions and will bring them within the definition of civil servant without any exception or reservation irrespective of the nature of the work and the duties performed by them.
63. ' Upon the above discussions, I agree with my learned colleague that the petitioner is deemed to be a civil servant and is precluded from invoking the jurisdiction of this Court in the matter relative to the terms and conditions of his service.
64. ' Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed as having abated.