' Nisar Ahmad appellant U. D. C. Employed in the Railway Headquarters Office, Lahore filed application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Junior Labour Court No, 1, against the respondent seeking relief to the effect that the respondent might be directed to promote the appellant in Grade III.
2. The appellant in his application contended that he was promoted in Grade-III but on 30th September, 1970 was reverted to Grade-II without any reason and his reversion was unjust and illegal. His application was resisted by the respondent who pleaded inter alia that the appellant happend to be civil servant and therefore, his application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was not maintainable before the Junior Labour Court.
3. The learned lower Court heard the parties on the question of jurisdiction and by its detailed order dated 29th November, 1975 concluded that the appellant was a civil servant and his remedy lay before the Civil Servants Tribunal and that the jurisdiction of the Junior Labour Court was completely ousted under section 3 (2) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
4. The said order dated 29th November, 1973 has been impugned through the present appeal.
5. I have carefully gone through the records of the case and the parties have also been heard at length. The appellant is admittedly a der employed in the Headquarters Office of the Railways. He is therefore not workman as defined in the Factories Act 1934 or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. In these circumstances he being in the service of the Federation in connection with the affairs of the Federation is a civil servant within the meaning of section 2 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973.
According to section 3(2) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 a Service Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction in respect of all matters relating to terms and conditions of service of a civil servant including disciplinary matters. This case is therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Service Tribunal. The learned lower Court has rightly held so.
6. In view of the above we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed while the impugned order is upheld.