' This Constitutional petition assails an order 'recorded by Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal Lahore on 16-9-1989.
2. The respondent at the relevant time was working as a Baildar in the office of the petitioner No,1 Superintending Engineering, Irrigation, Neeli Bar Circle, Sahiwal. He was charge-sheeted on the allegation of having committed theft of trees and ultimately found guilty. A recovery of Rs,49,330 was ordered against him alongwith stoppage of two increments. He successfully assailed the impugned order, dated 21-4-1988 before the Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan. The learned Presiding Officer of the Court on 29-7-1989 set aside the impugned order and restrained the present petitioners from implementing the order or to make recovery, of the amount mentioned therein. Earlier he rejected the objection that being a civil servant the petitioner/present respondent could not approach the Labour Court. On
3. Appeal, the present petitioners failed before the Tribunal. Their objection that the respondent being a civil servant could not approach the forums available to workmen was again rejected by the Tribunal through the impugned order, dated 16-9-1989.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. For the petitioners it is stated that the respondent is clearly covered by the definition of a civil servant as given in section 2(1)(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. It is claimed that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the aforesaid definition of a civil servant and incorrectly held the respondent to be a workman.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, supports the impugned orders. Also relies upon re: Muhammad Yaqub v. The Punjab Court No,1 and others 1990 SCM R 1539, re: Mechanical Engineer v. S.M.D. Sukkur and others v. Andrew John and others PLD 1978 Kar. 503, re: Executive Engineer, Central Civil Division Pak. P.W.D. Quetta v. Abdul Aziz and others PLD 1996 SC 610 and re: Project Director, Karkhana Alaat-e-Zari etc. v. The Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court and another PLD 1989 SC 152 to contend that the respondent No,1 was rightly held to be a workman and, therefore, entitled to the relief given by the Labour Court.
6. After hearing the parties, I entertain no doubt that the opinion expressed by the Labour Court as well as the Tribunal as to the status of the present respondent is totally misplaced. The learned Labour Court held the respondent to be a worker on the ground that he was holding a post which involved manual work. Also that "he is merely a clog in a vast machinery of State with no administrative functions. He does not have any directional or policy control". Likewise the view of the Tribunal that affairs of the State are those which no private person was entitled to perform and that since any private person could grow trees, therefore, the respondent was not a civil servant is equally irrelevant and unconvincing.
7. The considerations weighing with both forums are not the whole truth. Mere fact that a person during performance of his duties does manual work is not by itself sufficient to make him a workman. Particularly when rest of the considerations are heavily poised against the supposed status. The tribunal was completely misdirected in holding that although being a Government Servant, the respondent was not in any way concerned with the affairs of the province. The logic that since a private person may grow trees, therefore, a Government Servant doing the same job on behalf of the Government was a workman is too novel to be accepted as correct.
8. Proceeding on similar lines the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a Deputy Commissioner of a District is a civil Servant while his driver is a workman. It is hardly convincing. To Say that only persons occupying senior positions in Government Service could be taken to be associated with the "affairs" of the Province is not correct.
8. All civil servants irrespective of their grades, pay scales, place of postings nature of working etc. Are governed by the Civil Servants Act, 1974. Like most of similar legislations, its beauty lies in the fact that it does not discriminate. All civil servants in the Province of Punjab from a Naib Qasid to Chief Secretary are governed by the same set of rules as regards their terms and conditions of service. According to Concise Oxford Dictionary, the word "affair" means things to be done, concern, business, matter, ordinary pursuits of life, business, dealings and public matters. A Naib Qasid or a Driver working in an office in any Government Office established by the Province under the orders of the Governor is as much involved in the affairs of the Province as the Head of that office could be. A civil servant is appointed according to criterion and standards with regard to education experience, physical standards, domicile and other conditions as prescribed under the appointment rules. He is invariably involved in the execution of a statutory duty cast upon him directly or indirectly by a legislative instrument, a rule or regulation made under that law. Any hindrance made in or thrown to the performance of his duties gives rise to a specific offrce under the P.P.C. Which is not chargeable when committed in respect of others.
9. After being inducted in Government service a civil servant is entitled to pay leave, health cover and pension etc. He retires at a certain age and even after retirement, he is entitled to a number of coverage etc. Other benefits like official accommodation or transportation for the purpose of performance of his duties is also at times coupled with other prerequisites. He has a progressive pay structure as also a channel in the hierarchy to move not only in pay scale but also to next position. When it comes to enforcement of discipline, efficiency, and good conduct he is required to adhere to certain standards again fixed by the law in the form of Rules framed under the Act. In fact the Act in itself is a complete code and is supplemented by Rules to provide for each and every eventuality qua the terms and conditions of a civil servant. His right to form association is also recognized but in a particular sense and to a particular extent. Therefore, he is a class totally different and separate from a workman.
10. The exclusion clause in section 2(1)(b) of the Act is mentioned not with the purpose to create a class of workers within the civil service but to connote and express that a person covered by the definition of "worker" or "workman" in the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934) and Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 will not enter the class of civil servants. The opinion that a person doing manual work should always be a workman has no relevancy as far the definition of a civil servant as contained in the aforesaid Act is concerned. Accordingly, there is hardly any logic behind the argument that a Deputy Commissioner is a civil servant but his driver is a workman. By that token it will have to be accepted that a Deputy Commissioner driving his official vehicle will be both a civil servant as well as a workman. This appears totally unrealistic and impractical. If nothing else, the very custody of State property makes the driver of a Government owned vehicle to be concerned with the affairs of the province, and therefore, a civil servant.
11. None of the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner except the case reported as Mechanical Engineer v. M.D.S. Sakkar (supra) is relevant on the issue in hand. However, the ratio settled in that case cannot be made applicable to the facts in hand. His Lordship in that case was considering the expression person employed in the administration of the State as used in section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance XXIII of 1972. Obviously the administration of State and an affair of the State are two different phrases with different meanings and implications. A State not only administers, it has a number of other affairs to look after as well. In fact in modern times a State administers less and serves more. Even in administration its role is becoming more akin to that of a watchdog rather than a proverbial policeman. Most of its roles now compromise in providing the citizens an atmosphere in which they could develop into a useful members of the society. The provisions of such services are its affairs. If the definitions of worker and workmen as given in the above labour laws are considered in their true perspective, it will be clear that the term civil servant is never interchangeable with any of them. Particularly due to the use of all-embracing word "affair of the Province". Therefore, where a province decides to grow trees nothing can be a better service in these days for enviromental protection. Accordingly, a person entrusted with its sowing, watering custody and protection is involved as good in the "affairs of the Province" as a Secretary to the Provincial Government who follows a given policy or himself formulises a policy.
13. It will also be seen that civil servants keep on being posted to various places. The change in position or posting many a time also involves change in nature of work. A Baildar as the petitioner is, may in all likelihood be posted to receive correspondence in his office where no direct manual work is involved. He may also be entrusted with the job to simply watch the placing of attendance register so that it is not removed by any employee. In that position if he is held to be workman then everybody else in the office would also be a workman. Conversely, if by reason of physical work he could be held to be a civil servant then the situation will be all more complex. In one position he will be a civil servant and in the other a workman. This does not appear to be the intention of the Civil Servants Act.
A Baildar or for that matter a Naib Qasid, a junior clerk or a Superintendent etc. In the office of the petitioner like rest of the Government departments are not engaged in any production or manufacturing process nor growing trees is a trade or business of the Province of Punjab. The definition of worker or workman as contained in Factories Act and Workman Compensation Act clearly suggests that a worker and a workman is a person who is engaged in a manufacturing process or, in terms of the definition of Workman Compensation Act, 1923, is a person who has been employed for the purpose of employer's trade or business. The Second Schedule to the Workman Compensation Act, 1923 also does not directly or indirectly suggest that any person employed in any administrative department of the Provincial Government like the one before us is a worker or was intended by that definition to be taken as a worker.
14. The holding of certain kinds of staff in the administrative departments of the Government as workmen has already created a situation which is legally unacceptable. That a person will enjoy all the benefits of civil servants but in matters of discipline and conduct he will be a workman. Such kind of choice to a person is not contemplated under any law. The inclusion of a civil servant into the definition of workman naturally clothes him with a right to form a trade union and to elect a collective bargaining agent which can negotiate terms and condition of the service. A civil servant from Naib Qasid to the highest position cannot change or manage to change civil service rules. If there is to be a change in the rules then it will be applicable to 'all civil servants in the like manner.
The forming of an association by a particular class of civil servants as permitted under the E&D Rules is totally different from a trade union or a C .B. A .
15. The long and short of the above being that the administrative departments of the Province of Punjab are not engaged in any manufacturing or production process nor are engaged in any business or trade. Therefore, its regular employees are civil servants and cannot be said to be workers or workmen only for the reason that in discharge of some of their duties they happen to exert physically. Therefore, I will allow this petition and declare that respondent at the relevant time being a civil servant his petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 before the Labour Court was not maintainable. Also the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to maintain an order which was illegal per se.
16. .