' Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 16-1-1994 passed by respondent No,3 Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore. It is further prayed that the respondent No,1 be directed to grant back benefits to the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk on ad hoc basis in Highway Circle, Gujranwala by respondent No,1 vide Letter No, 89/E, dated 9-7-1988 initially for a period of six months. Thereafter he was allowed to continue because he was appointed against a permanent post. After appointment of the petitioner one Muhammad Latif son of Nawab Din was appointed as a Junior Clerk on ad hoc basis against the vacancy occurred due to promotion of one Muhammad Saleem by respondent No,1 vide order No,94/E dated 13-3-1989. The abovesaid Muhammad Latif is still in service being a junior to the petitioner. Subsequently on 3-6-1989 petitioner was verbally told that as he was appointed against the leave vacancy of Sardar Mahmood Khan, who was resuming duty, therefore, he shall be relieved from service. On receiving this verbal information petitioner filed a grievance petition in the Punjab Labour Court No,7, Gujranwala with an application for grant of stay, upon which stay was granted to the petitioner to continue his service. Respondents filed written statement and written reply to the grievance petition and stay application respectively. After recording evidence respondent No,2 ordered reinstatement of the petitioner in service without back benefits, on 20-2-1993, against which respondent No,1 filed an appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore-respondent No,3, which was accepted vide order dated 16-4-1994 by respondent No,3 by holding that as the petitioner is a civil servant, therefore, he was not competent to invoke provisions of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Hence this writ petition, impugning the order dated 16-1- 1994 passed by respondent No,3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the objection petition was filed no objection was raised by respondent No,1 about jurisdiction of the Labour Court. It is further contended that under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the petitioner being not employed in the Administration of State was competent to file grievance petition before the Labour Court as he fell within the definition of workman, It is further contended that the post being held by the petitioner was not in connection with the administration of State of Province. Petitioner is not a civil servant and I.R.O., 1969 is applicable to him. Reliance is placed on PLD 1996 SC 610. Learned counsel further contends that the order of Labour Appellate Tribunal is illegal and is liable to be set aside.
4. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.
Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk on ad hoc basis for the period of 6 months, which period, according to the petitioner was extended for 3 months. On the other hand, according to the Department services of the petitioner were terminated w,e,f, 13-6-1989 on the assuming of the duty by Sardar Mehmood Khan, a permanent incumbent. Petitioner filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court posing himself as a workman. The basic question in this writ petition and in the earlier proceedings was that whether the petitioner who is a civil servant could file grievance petition by posing himself as workman or not and whether the petition before the Labour Court was competent or not. The definition of civil servant has been given in section 2(1)
(b) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which reads as under:-- ' Section 2(1)(b)--- "civil servant" means a person who is a member of a civil service of the Province 'Jr who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province but does not include--
(i) a person who is on deputation to the Province from the Federation or any other Province or authority;
(ii) a person who is employed on contract, or on work-charged basis, or who is paid from contingencies; or
(iii) a person who is a worker or workman as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934) or the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 (VIII of 1923); According to the above definition the petitioner is a civil servant and does not fall within the definition of workman as defined under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and was not workman. The judgment passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate .Tribunal-respondent No,3 is based on correct interpretation of law. Now it is well-settled law that civil ad hoc employees are also civil servants and they can avail remedy by filing appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act. This Court has also given its recent view that the ad hoc employee can also file appeal before the Service Tribunal. This decision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide judgment passed in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,1084-L of 2001 alongwith other petitions on 20th day of June, 2001. Moreover, the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also of no avail to the petitioner.
5. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that the writ petition filed by the instant writ petitioner has no merits and the same is dismissed.