Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLG 3113 = 1980 SLD 3113 = 1980 PLC 207
Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal
Writ Petition No. 1600/S of 1980, decided on 20th February 1980.
Presented By:  Gul Muhammad Khan, J
Wasim Sajjad for Appellant. M. Ismail Bhatti for
Respondent.

SAMIUDDIN QURESHI

VERSUS

FINANCE MEMBER, RAILWAY BOARD, LAHORE

Law: Civil Servants Act, 1973

Section: 2(1)(b), 13(ii)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 154

(a) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) S. 2(1)(b)-Civil servant-Petitioners, Railway employees, held, persons holding civil posts in connection with affairs of Federation hence to be treated as civil servants under Civil Servants Act, 1973 and not as workmen under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 or Factories Act, 1934. Salahuddin v. Frontier Sugar Mills P L D 1975 S C 244 rel. Muhammad Akram Burr v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan P L D 1978 Kar. 510 distinguished. Akbar Ali v. Senior Administrative Officer writ petition No. 472 of 1978 and Muzaffar Abbas Naqvi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan P L J 1979 Lah. 375 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 154-Functions of Council of Common Interests-Article, held, nothing to do with power of Parliament to legislate or with execu tive authority of Federal Government to deal with its employees. (c) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) S. 13(ii) read with Organization Order No. 1 of West Pakistan Railway Board-Competent Authority-Finance Member, held, com petent authority under S. 13(ii) and his orders not without lawful authority. Date of hearing : 20th February 1980.                                                                                                             JUDGMENT   This order shall also dispose of Writ Petition No. 1581/S of 1983 which involves identical questions. 2. The petitioner who is a grade 16 Officer of the Accounts Department of the Pakistan Railways has been compulsorily retired under section 13 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, on his completing 25 years of service qualifying him for pension or other retirement benefits vide order dated 2nd February 1980. The same is the case in the other petition. They challenge those orders through the present writ petitions. 3. The learned counsel raised the following points :- (a) The petitioners are not Civil Servants and, therefore, no order could have been passed against…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register