' Through this common order I intend to dispose of two Constitution petitions namely Constitutional Petitions Nos. S-102 of 1985 and S-103 of 1985 as the facts and law involved in both these petitions are common.
2. In C.P. No, S-102 of 1985 there are some 156 private respondents who were admittedly employed with the Executive Engineer, Feeder Division, Hyderabad on "work-charged basis". This organization is attached with the Provincial Government, therefore, it was claimed by the petitioner that the private respondents being "civil servants" were neither entitled to house rent nor the Commissioner under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, was legally competent to pass any award. In Constitutional Petition No, S-103 of 1985 there are some 555 private respondents employed with the petitioner in the same manner as of earlier petition.
3. I have heard Mr. Ghulam Nabi Soomro, Additional Advocate-General and Mr. Salahuddin H.
Ahmed, Advocate for private respondents. It was argued by Mr. Ghulam Nabi Soomro that the claim before the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation/Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Hyderabad, was not legally maintainable since the Government of Sindh being necessary party by virtue of section 79, C.P.C. was not impleaded. It was further argued that the private respondents being temporary employees engaged on the work-charged basis were not entitled for the house rent allowance; that both the orders passed by Commissioner as well as Labour Court suffers from lack of jurisdiction. On the other hand, it was contended by Mr. Salahuddin Ahmed that the petitioner neglected to deposit the amount as provided under section 7(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1936), therefore, their appeal became time-barred before the Appellate Forum and was rightly dismissed on that short ground.
He has further stated that much after admission of this petition the amount as per direction of the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation was deposited in this Court. It was vehemently contended that there is no illegality or irregularity in both the judgments. He has argued that since the private respondents were employed on "work-charged basis", therefore, they do not fall within the definition of civil servants. He has placed reliance on the case of Secretary, Irrigation Department, Sindh, Karachi v. Nasir Khan and others (1985 PLC 1060) and the case of Ahmed Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act (NLR 1989 38) also reported in (1990 PLC 26).
4. It is an admitted position that the private respondents were engaged with the petitioner on "work-charged basis" and, therefore, contention of learned Additional Advocate-General that the petitioner being an organization attached with the Provincial Government the private respondents were civil servants is not tenable. According to definition of civil servants as defined in the Civil Servants Act, 1973, three categories of servants have been excluded from the definition of civil servants, namely, those who are engaged on contract basis, secondly, on work-charged basis and lastly, who are being paid from contingencies. This question was recently settled by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Central Civil Division, Pak: P.W.D. Quetta v. Abdul Aziz and others (1996 PLC 385) where, in somewhat similar circumstances it was held that the workers attached with the Executive Engineer, Pak: P.W.D. at Quetta were not civil servants and were entitled for the relief from the Commissioner under the Payment of Wages Act. For further reference see Mechanical Engineer Sindh and others v. Rasool Bux and others (1986 PLC 958) and the Secretary, Irrigation Department Sindh Karachi v. Nasir Khan and others (1985 PLC 1060). All these questions were also considered in detail by a learned Single Judge of this Court while sitting at Sukkur Bench in Constitutional Petition No, 163 of 1984 (Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division v.
Rahim Bux and others) where petition filed by Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division Guddu Barrage, Sukkur against the order of Commissioner/Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was dismissed on the same grounds as urged by Mr. Salahuddin Ahmed.
5. In view of the aforesaid law and circumstances it cannot be accepted that the direction issued by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation for payment of house rent and other allowances was illegal and unauthorized. Appeal filed against said order before the Labour Court was rightly rejected as the petitioner failed to file copy of deposit certificate as provided under section 17(1)(a) of the Act, 1936. No other ground was urged by the learned Additional Advocate-General calling interference of this Court in the order passed by the two forums below. Both these petitions being misconceived are hereby dismissed with costs.