' The respondent, Khurshid Alam Bhatti, an Ex-Assistant Inspector (Watch and Wards) Carriage Shop, Moghalpura, Lahore was removed from service on 1st April 1972 by the Divisional Superintendent, Workshops, Moghalpura, Lahore.
2. He filed an application before the Junior Labour Court, Lahore under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 seeking his re-instatement and challenging the validity of the order of removal from service on various grounds such as non-service of charge-sheet, want of proper enquiry and non-affording of reasonable opportunity to show cause.
3. Divisional Superintendent, Workshops resisted the application of the respondent on merits as well as by raising preliminary objections to the effect that the respondent was not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and that his application was not maintainable in view of promulgation of Civil Servants Ordinance, 1973.
4. On 15th January 1974, the appellant filed an application before the Learned. Junior Labour Court contending that Railways being a Central Government Department was governed by the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 and that on account of declaration of emergency in the country, Railways had become the part and parcel of the Defence Department and as such the jurisdiction of the Junior Labour Court stood barred under section 1 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It was further contended in the application dated 15th January 1974, that the respondent was not a workman and thus had no locus standi to file the application. In view of these contentions the appellant prayed that the application filed by the respondent before the Junior Labour Court under section 23-A of the I. R.
0. Might be dismissed.
5. The application of the Railways was resisted by the respondent. The learned lower Court after hearing the parties by its order dated 4th June 1974 concluded that the petitioner was a workman and consequently the application dated 15th January 1974 filed by the appellant was dismissed.
The present appeal has been directed against the aforesaid order dated 4th June 1974 of the learned lower Court. It is noteworthy that during the course of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant mainly emphasized the point that the respondent being a civil servant, the jurisdiction of all Courts in respect of the terms and conditions of the respondent including disciplinary matters was ousted by the provisions of Tribunals Act. As a matter of fact this plea has not been raised by the appellant in his application dated 15th January 1974 although in the written statement filed by the appellant before the Lower Court, the plea has been raised to the effect that the application under section 25-A of the I. R.
0. Was not maintainable in view of the promulgation of Civil Service Ordinance, 1973. This plea has yet to be decided by the learned Lower Court. In the circumstances the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts was ousted by the provisions of the Tribunals Act has hardly any relevancy for the purpose of the present appeal. By virtue of the application dated 15th January 1974, the appellant sought the dismissal of the respondent's application under section 25-A of the I. R. O. On the following grounds:-
(a) that Railways being a Central Government Department was governed by the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952;
(b) that on account of the declaration of emergency in the country the Railways had become a part of the Defence Department and therefore, the jurisdiction of Junior Labour Court stood ousted under section 1 of the I. R. O., 1969; and
(c) that the respondent being a member of the Watch and Wards Staff did not fall within the definition of a workman and had no locus standi to file an application under section 25-A of the I. R.
0.
6. As regards the plea of service under Railways being an essential service within the meaning of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. I have carefully gone through the, provisions of the said Act and I find that there is no force in this plea.
7. Section 1 (3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, provides that this Ordinance shall not apply to any person employed in the Police or any of the Defence Services of Pakistan and any services or installations connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan including an Ordnance Factory maintained by the Federal Government or to any person employed in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen by the Railways, Post, Telegraph and Telephone Departments. Railways by no stretch of imagination is connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan within the meaning of section 1 (3) ibid. Employment under Railways has specifically been ousted from the preview section 1 (3) of the I. R.
0. The plea of the appellant in this behalf is also therefore, without any merit.
8. Having regard to the definition of the expression "workman" as contained in section 2(xxviii) of the I. R.
0. It becomes clear that an Assistant Inspector (Watch and Wards) Carriage Shop, Moghalpura, who is positively not an employer, is a workman within the meaning of the I. R.
0.
9. In the light of what has been said above, is concluded that the Learned Lower Court was justified in dis-allowing the application, dated 15th January 1974 of the appellant. I would accordingly uphold the impugned order and dismiss the present appeal. The records of the Lower Court be returned to the said Court for the expeditious disposal of the case. Parties are directed to appear for further proceedings before the learned lower Court, on 26th May 1975.