' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 5-6- 2000 passed by learned Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed due to want of jurisdiction and the order, dated 15-12-1998 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service has been kept intact.
2. Mr. Jehangir A. Jhoja, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of petitioner and mainly contended that section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 has been misconstrued and misinterpreted which resulted in miscarriage of justice as the exceptions contained in the definition of "civil servants" in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 cannot be made applicable to such categories of persons who shall be deemed to be 'civil servants' under section 2-A for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. It is urged with vehemence that the petitioner being Cashier performing his duties in the United Bank Limited was 'civil servant' and could have invoked the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. It is further contended that it has been held by this Court time and again in cases of the employees of WAPDA and PIA that they shall be deemed to be 'civil servants' for the purposes of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 without any exception, limitation and qualification irrespective of the fact whether they are "civil servants" within the definition of 'civil servants' as mentioned in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 or otherwise.
3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have also perused the judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-- "(3) This case is identical to the case bearing Appeal No,983(L) of 1999 filed by Nosherwan v. U.B.L.
Already decided by this Tribunal vide judgment, dated 10-2-2000 wherein it was held by the Tribunal that a workman employed under any Authority, Corporation, Body or Organization established by or under a Federal Government in which the Federal Government has controlling share or interest shall have recourse to the law applicable to him for redressal of his grievance and shall not be deemed to be a civil servant for the purpose of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and his appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,"
4. The above reproduced extract would show that the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that petitioner being "workman" is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal being not a "civil servant". We are of the considered view that the provisions as contained in section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 has been misconstrued and misinterpreted by the learned Service Tribunal. All such employees are amenable to the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal being "civil servant" which status has been conferred upon them by virtue of section 2-A for the limited purpose i.e, approaching the Service Tribunal for the redressal of their grievance concerning terms and conditions of their service irrespective of the Service Rules and Regulations applicable in their cases. It hardly matters as to whether being a cashier his services were regulated by the Wage Commission Award or otherwise. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in Muhammad Afzal v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (1999 SCM R 92). It is worthmentioning that the import of section 2-A has been examined in case Aftab Ahmed v.
Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (1999 SCM R 197), relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- "3. As regards that second ground which has been found favour with the Service Tribunal, it may be pertinent to reproduce the aforesaid newly-enacted section 2A in the Act, which reads as under:-- 2-A. Service under certain corporations, etc. To be service of Pakistan.---Service under any Authority, Corporation, Body of Organization established by or under 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 purpose of this Act.'
A perusal of the above quoted newly-enacted section 2-A indicates that the 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 of interest has been declared to be service of Pakistan. It has also been provided that every person holding a post under any such Authority, Corporation, Body or Organization shall be deemed to be in civil service for the purpose of this Act i.e, the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. In our view, it is not necessary for an employee working in any of the Organizations covered by section 2- A that he should also come within the ambit of definition of the "civil servant" given in section 2(b) of the Act of 1973. The employees of the various Authorities, Corporations etc. Mentioned 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 an order of which they may feel aggrieved.
4-A. As regards the third ground which found favour with the Service Tribunal in some of the cases, namely, that petitioners were employed on contract basis or they were workmen excluded by the definition of "civil servants" given in section 2(1)(b) of the Act of 1973, it may be observed that since we have held that the latter definition is not applicable to the employees covered by the newly- enacted section 2-A. As a corollary, it must follow that the exceptions mentioned in clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Act of 1973 will not be attracted to the petitioner's cases.
5. The said view also finds support from the dictum laid down in Zahir Ullah v. Chairman, WAPDA (2000 SCM R 826) which is also reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- "The above view taken by the learned Tribunal does not appear to correct as section 2-A which was inserted in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, by its own force, created a class of Government servants by fiction, for the purpose of allowing them to avail remedy of appeal before the learned Service Tribunal. Section 2-A (ibid) while providing that the 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 of interest is declared to be the service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under such Corporation or Organization shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purpose of Service Tribunals Act, does not make any differentiation between the employees working in such Organization either as regular employees or contract employees or workmen. We are, therefore, of the view that as the appellants were covered by the provisions of section 2-A for the purposes of availing remedy before the Service Tribunal. The fact that they were employed in the Organization/Corporation on contract basis, could not disentitle them to the remedy of appeal which became available to them on account of incorporation of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
' In sequel to the above mentioned discussion the petition is converted into appeal and accepted.
The Federal Service Tribunal shall decide the appeal afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned as the controversy squarely falls within its jurisdictional domain.