DECISION ' Dissatisfied with the order, dated. 25-10-2000 of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority Under Payment of. Wages Act, the Karachi Port Trust has come in this appeal through its Chairman. The facts leading to this appeal may be summarized as follows. One Tanveer Ahmed was a permanent employee of the appellant working as peon in Traffic Department with effect from 1-7-1979. He was, however, retired on medical ground on 28-7-1993. About 2 months later he died in road accident. The respondent Muhammad Salim the father of the deceased Tanveer Ahmed made an application complaining therein that the appellant did not pay Group Insurance amount of Rs,1,00,000 due to him as heir of the deceased Tanveer Ahmed despite repeated reminders. His application was opposed by the appellant who in their written statement took the stand that the deceased Tanveer Ahmed was not in their employment at the time of his death and, therefore, he was not entitled to the claim of Group Insurance. Their application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C., was rejected by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner). Nevertheless respondent prayed for amendment of his application which was accordingly amended and as such the appellant filed amended Written Statement. The said respondent filed affidavit-in-evidence and for the appellant Mr. Ghafoor Javed, Manager, Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Secretariat filed his affidavit-in-evidence. After considering the evidence brought on record and hearing the learned counsel of the, parties, the Commissioner passed the impugned order directing the appellant to deposit Rs, (Rupees one lac as amount of claim and Rupees five thousand as cost) within 3 days of the order. It is against the said order that this appeal has been filed.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant record including the written arguments submitted by both the parties.
3. In the written arguments submitted on behalf of the respondents I have come across, inter alia, the Legal Objections based on amendment made in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 whereby clause
(a) of section 2 has been amended to include the words 'and shall include a person declared to be a civil servant under section 2-A;' and 'further new section 2-A has been added which reads as follows:-- "(2-A) 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 deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of this Act."
4. The third amendment by the same amending Act (Act No,XVII of 1997) promulgated on 10th June, 1997 is the omission of the word "final" from subsection (1) of section 4 of the said Act.
5. There is no doubt that K.P.T./respondent is a, body corporate established under K.P.T. Act which is a Federal Law and is exclusively controlled and owned by Government of Pakistan. This being as the K.P.T. Is covered by section 2-A of the Amending Act and consequently every employee of the K.P.T. Shall be deemed to be a civil servant and Service Tribunal and not the Labour Judiciary shall have jurisdiction to deal with cases of the employees of the K.P.T. In support of this view reference may be made to the judgment of Supreme Court with Civil Petition No,1305-K of 1997 wherein it was held:-- ' Since the right of appeal is a procedural matter, the newly added section 2-A was applicable retrospectively In our view, it is not necessary for an employee working in any of the organization covered by section 2-A that he should also come within the ambit of the definition of the civil servant given in section 2(b) of the Act of 1973. The employees of the various authorities, corporations etc; sanctioned in section 2-A have been treated in the service of Pakistan for limited purpose for providing remedy by way of appeal to them against the order of which they may feel aggrieved."
' In view of the legal position changed by the aforesaid Service Tribunal (Amending) Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court interpreting the said amendment, the Labour Judiciary ceased to have jurisdiction in respect of the cases covered by the aforesaid Amending Act. This appeal is, therefore, disposed as having abated. The appellant may approach the Service Tribunal by adopting the due procedure.
' Appeal disposed as abated.