Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 2142 1992 SLD 2142 1992 PLJ 409
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.887 of 1988, accepted on 26.5.1992. Jurisdiction— Date of hearing: 26.5.1992.
MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J
Ch. Fazal-i-Hussain, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Hassan, Advocate for
Respondent No. 1 Nemo for
Respondent No.2

PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, THROUGH CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, LAHOREer

VS

S. ABDUL RAUF and another--Respondents

Law:

Section:

 Writ Petition No.887 of 1988, accepted on 26.5.1992. Jurisdiction— -—Railway employee-Transfer of--Complaint of unfair labour practice under Section 15 read with Section 53 of I.R.O.-Maintainability of~Under Article 212 of Constitution, a dispute regarding terms and conditions of a civil servant can be agitated only before Service Tribunal and no other forum—Question is whether respondent No.l is a civil servant-It would appear from definition of Civil Servant as given in Section 2(b}(iii) of Civil Servants Act, 1973 that exclusion is of a limited nature and is confined only to those employees of Railway who are workers or workmen within meaning of Factories Act, 1934 and Workmens .Compensation Act, 1923 and not all employees-Held: Jurisdiction of N.I.R.C. to try complaint filed before it by respondent No.l was barred by Article 212 of Constitution-Petition accepted. [Pp.411 412]A,B,C,D,E PLD 1981 SC 172 and PLD 1992 SC 127 rel. JUDGMENT Sheikh Abdul Rauf, respondent No.l, was working as an Upper Division Clerk in the employment of the petitioner, when on 21st of January, 1986, he filed a complaint under Section 15 read with Section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the National Industrial Relations Commission, respondent No.2, alleging that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practice by ordering his transfer allegedly on account of his trade union activities. 2. The complaint was defended, inter alia, on the plea that respondent No.l was not a workman but was a civil servant, and as such the National Industrial Relations Commission had no jurisdiction in the matter. The objection regarding maintainability of the petition was repelled by a single Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission on 9th of February, 1987. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Full Bench of the Commission, which, however was dismissed, as being not maintainable on 8th of December, 1987. The order dated 9th of February, 1987 of the single Member and the subsequent order of 8th December, 1987 of the Full Bench of the Commission have been assailed in this petition. 3. Mr. Fazal-i-Hussain, the learned counsel for…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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