' By way of this common judgment I propose to' dispose of appeals Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of 2003 as in all the appeals identical question of law and facts is involved.
2. Short factual background of these appeals are that the appellants were appointed in the respondent establishment on different posts such as Baildar, Mali and Naib Qasid. Their services were terminated by the respondents on the ground of surplusness. Such termination aroused the grievances of the appellants who served the grievance notice upon the respondents, which could not redress their grievances and as such the appellants were obliged, to file the grievance petitions under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with Industrial and Commercial Employment Sanding Orders, Ordinance, 1968 before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour 'Court, Haripur. The respondents resisted the petitions by filing written statements. Amongst a number of objections a legal objection was also raised to the effect that, "the employees of S.D.A. Do not fall under the definition of workman due to lack of authority being not a commercial establishment".
The parties adduced their evidence as they .Willed in support of their respective contentions. The learned Labour Court, Haripur after hearing the arguments of both sides formulated an opinion that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter and as such the petitions were returned to the appellants for presentation before the proper forum if so advised. Such order was passed on 18-2-2003.The appellants feeling dissatisfied with the impugned order have challenged the same by way of the instant appeals.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued that the learned Labour Court was incorrect in arriving to the conclusion that the appellants do not fall under the definition of workman and as such the Labour Court had got no jurisdiction. The learned counsel in order to re-inforce his submissions has made reference to the statement of P.W.4 namely Muhammad Iqbal Project Manager S.D.A. Hattar and urged that this witness has admitted that S.D.A. Project is not a charitable or trust but is a commercial concern based on profit and loss basis. He also made reference to section 2(14) of I.R.O. And section 1(4) of the Standing Order Ordinance, 1968 and has made an endeavour to build up a case that since the respondents' organization has got no statutory rules to govern the service of employees, therefore, status of the appellants would become that of workman. He further made reference to the brochure of the respondents and pointed out pages 19, 23 and 27 thereof wherein certain projects were shown to be the Concern of the respondents.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has argued that the respondent is not a commercial establishment and decidedly the case of the appellants falls within the per-view of Master and Servant. The learned counsel has urged that the judgments rendered in writ petitions referred to by the learned. Presiding Officer Labour Court in his impugned order support his contention. He, however, placed emphatic reliance on the judgment of this Court delivered by a Hobourable Division Bench in Writ Petition No,284 of 1994 decided on 12-5-1998.
Through the said judgment a number of other writ petitions were also decided. The concluding paragraph of the said learned judgment being extremely relevant for the disposal of these appeals is given as follows:-- "13. Consequently, we have no hesitation in holding that the service rules of Sarhad Development Authority are not statutory rules. That the relationship between the authority and its, employees is that of Master and Servant and hence Constitutional jurisdiction or civil jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked for seeking relief of reinstatement in service. The remedy for wrongful dismissal is to cliam damages. With these observations, all the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.
' Dated 9-5-1998. (Sd.) judge ' Announced 12-5-1998 (Sd.) (Sd.)
Judge Judge ' The above concluding paragraph has settled the position as it was held that the relationship between the authority and its employees is that of Master and Servant. It is also settled proposition that where there is a relationship of Master and Servant the only course open to the servants/employees would be to file a civil suit for damages and in such situation the Labour Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the grievances of the employees. The cited judgment is also related to the employees of the S.D.A., i,e,, the present respondents and being a judgment of Honourable Division Bench is binding on me.
5. In the wake of the above discussion, I see no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. Resultantly, these appeals are dismissal with no order as to costs.