' The appeal is directed against the decision dated 20-4-1995, rendered by Malik Mushtaq Ahmad, learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahwalpur, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant, having earlier been filed under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
2. Rao Ghulam Yaseen was employed by the Pakistan Railways and was attached with the Commercial Staff, in the year 1978. He states to have given his option for his promotion as S.T.E. The said promotion allegedly was delayed and he (Rao Ghulam Yaseen) was actually promoted in the year 1992, so that he suffered a lot, as is maintained, in terms of his salary, seniority, further promotion, etc. He pleads that he was entitled to promotion from April 1980, and would also be eligible to lay claim to back benefits, for the period from April 1980 onwards.
2-A. I have carefully gone through the lengthy judgment, drawn up by the learned lower Court; and I find myself wholly inclined not to uphold the contentions raised by the appellant and to agree with the observations and findings recorded by the learned Labour Court. Rao Yaseen is holding a supervisory post and is drawing Rs.3,000 as monthly salary, on having been placed in BPS-11. By no stretch of imagination can he claim to be a workman, having a manual duty. All the employees of the Railways have been declared to be civil servants and they can seek redressal of their grievances, if any, under the Civil Servants Act by having recourse to the Federal Service Tribunal, after of course exhausting all his departmental remedies. In certain cases, it has been held that, availing of the departmental remedy or making of representation would not constitute a pre- requisite for coming to a Labour Court; but the question that is first to be determined for such incidence would be that the aggrieved person must be a worker, who can invoke the aid of the Labour Laws in his favour, by having recourse to a Labour Court, and it will also have to be pre- judged that as a workman any guaranteed or secured right of the person concerned has infect been infringed or violated. It cannot possibly be contended that these eventualities have occurred in this case, and the appellant has a right to assert his status as a workman and to have access to a Labour Court, by filing a grievance petition, preceded by a statutory notice. Mere oral assertion, made to the effect, that no one else is under the official, would not make him a workman. In our set-up, in Government service, or within the fold of corporate bodies and even private organisations and establishments, everybody is subordinate to someone else, except, of course, the Head of the State, but even he is not supposed to be all powerful, as he also is required to observe the provisions of the Constitution and obey the dictates of Qur'an and Sunnah. Can the appellant claim that he is at the lowest rung of the ladder? I do not think, he is a menial of the lowest ebb and, therefore, a worker. In the Notification dated 15-12-1991, he has been declared as a supervisor. Unless and until an employee can legitimately claim to be a worker, he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. Even, otherwise, he claims his seniority and promotion from the year 1980 onwards. He thus must be regarded to have come to the Labour Forum too late in the day. It has been observed by the learned lower Court that he had not raised a little finger against his seniority for full 12 years and would, therefore, be estopped by reason of his conduct to object to his place in the list of seniority, after such a long time. He should have adopted remedial measures for restoration of his seniority, but he appeared to have failed to act and seemed to have remained in state of inaction over a number of years. Mere oral assertion made to the effect that he had been lodging representations to the higher Authorities in that behalf would not help him, especially when his own record does not support this plea. Even if the year 1980 is not taken as a material foundation of his claim, the provisional seniority tilt Exh. R-1 having been published on 4-10-1992 may will be regarded as conferring on the official the final cause of action, which, according to his own showing, had, however, accrued to him in as back as 1980. He would, therefore, be produced, on the strength of his own conduct, from challenging the seniority list in question, through a legal action. He, however, had filed the grievance petition in the Labour Court at Bahawalpur in January, 1993, which was quite delayed, if not palpably time-barred.
3. The above consideration apart, there can be no cavil with the proposition that the grievance petition is not maintainable and the Labour Court has no jurisdiction in the matter; and I entirely agree with the finding recorded to that effect by the learned Court below. Learned counsel for the Railways has, at the end, argued that all the employees of the Federal Government ,having been declared civil servants, by virtue of the amendment, effected in June, 1997 in the Federal Service Tribunal Act, 1973, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is also this Tribunal is expressly ousted, even though the official may not be debarred from agitating his service rights in the competent forum.
The august Apex Court of the country has very recently proclaimed that the aforesaid amendment will be given effect to retrospectively. This will leave little doubt about lack of jurisdiction of labour forum in the matter. I would endorse the observations and the findings of the learned lower Court and would dismiss the appeal, being bereft of all merit, with costs throughout.