Law:

Section:

Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (LXX of 1973)-- ----Ss. 4 & 2--Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Sched-II-(xiii)--Determination of competent jurisdiction--Definition of workman--Appellant was not a civil servant under S. 2(i)(b)--Appeal u/Ss. 4 & 2 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, but it should have been filed u/S. 2-A Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and new under S. 2 as he was a workman--Held: Appellant might seek his remedy before labour court of competent jurisdiction--Appeal disposed of. [P. 19] A Judgment Qazi Muhammad Hussain Siddiqui, Member.--Advocates for the parties present. Heard them and perused the record. 2. The Appellant was, admittedly, a workman, as envisaged under clause-xiii of Schedule-II of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which is reproduced as under:-- "(xiii) employed as an inspector, mail guard, sorter or van peon in the Railway Mail Service, or employed in any occupation ordinarily involving outdoor work in the Posts and Telegraphs Department; or" 3. In view of the above definition of workman, the Appellant was not a civil servant under Section 2(1)(b) of Civil Servants Act, 1973. However, in view of the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 SCMR 826 (Zahir Ullah and 13 others vs. Chairman, WAPDA Lahore and others), workmen were also held…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492