' The judgment shall dispose of the aforementioned two cases as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. The petitioners in the cases viz., Rana Ashfaque Ahmed and Muhammad Abdullah who were employed as Ledger-keeper and Bill Clerk in the office of the Revenue Officer, WAPDA, Gujranwala-I were placed under suspension by the said officer on 22nd November, 1975. Both the petitioners have filed the under-consideration petitions under section 25- A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, seeking relief to the effect that the orders of their suspension might be declared as illegal. Without lawful authority and of no legal effect and that the petitioners might be ordered to be re-instated in service immediately.
2. It is maintained in the petitions that their suspension orders were passed by Revenue Officer under the directions of the Authority and the Chief Engineer and that he himself has exercised no independent discretion. It is further maintained that there is no material with the respondent to charge the petitioners for misconduct justifying the suspension and that no show-cause notice was issued to them before issuing the suspension orders.
3. I have heard the parties about the maintainability of these petitions in this Court. As a matter of fact by the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 (Ordinance No, XVI of 1975) which has come into force on 30th September, 1975, the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Act 1958 has been amended. According to the so amended section 17 (I-B) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, service under the Authority has been declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under the Authority, not being a person who is on deputation to the Authority from any Province, is to be deemed to be a Civil Servant for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (LXX of 1973).
4. This clearly means that the petitioners in the under-considerations cases are to be deemed as Civil Servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
5. It is clearly provided in section 3(2) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 that a Tribunal shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of Civil Servants including disciplinary 4 matters. It would, therefore follow that the matter in issue in the under consideration petitions falls within exclusive jurisdiction of a Tribunal and this Court therefore lacks jurisdiction in that matter.
6. In view of the above it is concluded that the under consideration petitions are not triable in this Court for want of jurisdiction. They are within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Service Tribunal set up under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The under-consideration petitions are accordingly dismissed.