IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, CJ 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2020 
 (On appeal against the judgment dated 
25.08.2018 passed by the High Court of 
Balochistan, Quetta, in C.P. No. 136/2014) 
 
 
Divisional Superintendent, Quetta Postal Division and others 
 
…Appellants 
 
VERSUS 
 
Muhammad Ibrahim and others 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellants: 
Moulvi Ejaz ul Haq, DAG 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
Mr. Hamid ul Haseeb, Asst. Director 
(Investigation), Quetta 
 
 
For the Respondent (1): 
Ms. Sarwat Mukhtar, ASC 
(Through video link from Quetta) 
 
 
Amicus curiae: 
Hafiz Muhammad Tariq Nasim, ASC 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
10.06.2021 
… 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- The appellants 
through this appeal by leave of the Court under Article 185(3) of 
the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, have called 
in question the judgment dated 25.09.2018 passed by the High 
Court of Balochistan, Quetta, whereby the Constitution Petition 
assailed by the appellants was dismissed and the orders of 
Labour Court maintained by Labour Appellate Court were upheld.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that 
respondent No. 1 was appointed as Postman on 04.07.1987. 
During the service tenure, he was assigned as officiating 
postmaster at Killa Abdulah, District Quetta. During the 
subsistence of the said assignment, the respondent was alleged to 
Civil Appeal No. 508/2020 
2
have misappropriated public money belonging to exchequer while 
making bogus payments in Benazir Income Support Program 
especially designed to help the poor people as a gesture of 
goodwill by the Government. There was a mechanism designed to 
make payments through money orders. However, the requisite 
formalities were ignored intentionally with ill design and as such 
fake vouchers were prepared to show payments resulting into 
misappropriation of an amount to the tune of Rs.5,78,232/-. The 
respondent was proceeded against the said accusation resulting 
into registration of a case bearing FIR No. 14/2011 under Sections 
409, 468, 471, 477-A PPC read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1947. He was also proceeded against by the 
department by way of issuing a charge sheet on 20.06.2011 
wherein 
the 
charges 
of 
misappropriation, 
corruption 
and 
inefficiency were leveled. The department appointed Assistant 
Superintendent (Field), Post Office, Loralai as Inquiry Officer to 
probe into the allegations contained in the charge sheet. The 
respondent did not join inquiry proceeding, hence, it was carried 
on ex-parte. The Inquiry Officer while attending to all facts and 
circumstances and all other material placed before him found the 
allegations against the respondent as correct and held him guilty 
of 
the 
charge. 
The 
competent 
authority 
i.e. 
Divisional 
Superintendent, Postal Service, Quetta while relying upon the 
inquiry report coupled with the conduct of the respondent imposed 
penalty of dismissal from service upon the respondent vide order 
dated 14.07.2012. On the other hand on completion of the 
investigation, challan was submitted in the Court of Special 
Judge, Anti Corruption who after completion of the trial found the 
accusation against the respondent to be correct and as such he 
was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 28.02.2014 to 
suffer two years RI in each Section and to pay fine of various 
amounts under different sections. The respondent assailed the 
order of conviction before the High Court of Balochistan through 
Criminal Appeal No. 10/2014, which was allowed and the 
respondent was acquitted vide judgment dated 24.09.2018. In the 
meantime, the respondent served grievance notice upon the 
appellants and thereafter filed grievance petition on 13.08.2012 
Civil Appeal No. 508/2020 
3
before the Labour Court-I, Balochistan, Quetta. The appellants did 
not join proceedings before the Labour Court, hence, the grievance 
petition was accepted vide judgment dated 20.11.2012 and the 
respondent was reinstated into service. The judgment of the 
Labour Court was upheld by the Labour Appellate Tribunal vide 
judgment dated 02.01.2014. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed 
Constitution Petition No. 136/2014 before the High Court of 
Balochistan against the concurrent findings but the same was 
dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 25.09.2018. The 
appellants then filed CPLA 4630/2018 before this Court wherein 
leave to appeal was granted by this Court vide order dated 
08.05.2020, out of which the present appeal has arisen. The 
appeal was heard on 18.12.2020 and it was ordered to be 
allowed. However, before the order could be signed, it was found 
that certain aspects of the matter were not properly assisted, 
therefore, the matter was fixed for re-hearing to address the 
following law points for determination:- 
 
“(a) 
Whether a postman is a civil servant in terms of 
Section 2(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, 
entitling him to avail remedy before the Service 
Tribunal? 
 
(b) 
Whether the respondent is a workman, if so, 
under which law he will have remedy i.e. the 
Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010 or 
the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, which 
provides for its application to all persons 
employed in any establishment or industry, in 
the Islamabad Capital Territory or carrying on 
business in more than one province?  
 
(c) 
Whether 
the 
respondent 
had 
any 
right 
guaranteed or secured to him by or under any 
law or any award or settlement for the time 
being in force, for violation of which the 
grievance petition could be filed by him in the 
Labour forum? 
 
(d) 
Whether the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, 
where 
it 
has 
been 
applied 
to 
workmen 
employed in Postal Service will override the 
provisions 
of 
the 
Balochistan 
Industrial 
Relations Act, 2010 or even Section 1(4)(b) of the 
Act of 2010? And 
 
Civil Appeal No. 508/2020 
4
(e) 
Whether Section 1(4)(b) ibid in so for as it deals 
with the workmen of Pakistan Post, has become 
ultra vires the Constitution and the Act of 
2012?” 
 
3. 
 
To assist on the above noted questions of law raised, 
we had appointed Hafiz Muhammad Tariq Nasim, learned ASC, 
as amicus curiae. While opening his arguments, learned amicus 
curiae read various provisions of law including Section 2(1)(n) and 
clause ‘xiii’ of Schedule-II of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 
1923 and also Section 2(1)(b)(iii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 to 
contend that the postman does not fall within the definition of 
‘civil servant’ as he is ousted from the definition of civil servant, 
rather keeping in view the nature of duties performed by the 
postman in view of the definition of ‘workman’, he fully qualifies 
to be considered as workman; that the Pakistan Post is a trans-
provincial department having its offices in each Province and also 
in the Federal Capital, therefore, the provisions of Industrial 
Relations Act, 2012, will be applicable on the respondent postman 
and for redressal of any grievance, the right forum would be 
National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) as per the 
domain of the said Act of 2012; that being a trans-provincial 
authority, the workmen of Pakistan Post are to be dealt with by 
the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and Section 1(4)(b) of the 
Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010 is subservient to the 
provisions of Industrial Relations Act, 2012, as far as the 
workmen of Pakistan Post are concerned and the same is ultra 
vires of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan; that 
according to proviso to Section 1(4)(c) of the Industrial and 
Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, it 
shall not apply to Industrial and commercial establishments 
carried on by or under the authority of the Federal or any 
Provincial Government where statutory rules of service are 
applicable to the workmen but as the postman is not subject of 
Civil Servants Act, therefore, the Standing Orders Ordinance, 
1968, is applicable to the respondent postman.  
4. 
 
Learned 
Deputy 
Attorney 
General 
adopted 
the 
arguments of learned amicus curiae so far as the applicability of 
law is concerned, however, differed on sole point that the postman 
Civil Appeal No. 508/2020 
5
is a workman. He added that after the exclusion of the Telegraph 
department from the definition of the workman in Schedule-II of 
the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 since its abolition, the 
respondent is no more a workman. He also added that the job 
description of a postman is multi dimensional and he can be 
transferred to an indoor job, working in a room etc, therefore, on 
this score alone he cannot be considered a workman.  
5. 
 
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 mainly 
contended that the respondent is not a civil servant and the Civil 
Servant (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973 are not applicable to 
him, rather the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies to him, 
therefore, the respondent was fully justified to file grievance 
petition before the Labour Court. She further argued that this 
aspect of the case was fully attended to by the courts below and 
there are concurrent findings on this aspect, which makes it as a 
close transaction.  
6. 
 
We have heard the arguments of the learned amicus 
curiae, learned Law Officer and the learned counsel for the 
respondent at length and have perused the relevant law.  
7. 
 
Before proceeding with the case, it would be in order 
to discuss as to what is the job description of a postman. The 
main job duty of a postman is to sort mail on a sorting frame, 
getting it into address order, operate automated equipment, deliver 
mail on foot, by a bicycle/motorcycle or by van, get customer 
signatures for registered post and recorded deliveries, pick up mail 
from post boxes, post offices and businesses and deal with wrongly 
addressed or returned mail. Although, a postman performs indoor 
work but the main work of a postman relates to outdoor. Now we 
will deal with the question of foremost importance, whether the 
respondent is a civil servant in terms of Section 2(1)(b) of the Civil 
Servants Act, 1973 entitling him to avail remedy before the Service 
Tribunal, if falls within the ambit of a civil servant as contained in 
the Act. It is not disputed that the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, 
applies to all “civil servants” wherever they may be and it has 
exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms 
and conditions of service of ‘civil servants’ including disciplinary 
matters. The term “civil servant” includes a person who is or has 
Civil Appeal No. 508/2020 
6
been a civil servant within the meaning of the Civil Servants Act, 
1973, so we will have to see as to what the term ‘civil servant’ 
means under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. It reads as under: - 
2. Definitions.-(1)(b) "civil servant" means a 
person who is a member of an All-Pakistan Service 
or of a civil service of the Federation, or who holds 
a civil post in connection with the affairs of the 
Federation, including any such post connected with 
defence, but does not include– 
 
(i) a person who is on deputation to the Federation 
from any Province or other authority;  
 
(ii) a person who is employed on contract, or on 
work-charge 
basis 
or 
who 
is 
paid 
from 
contingencies; or 
 
(iii) a person who is a "worker" or "workman" as 
defined in the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934), or 
the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 
1923); 
 
8. 
 
The plain reading of the above-referred definition of 
‘civil servant’ brings us to the conclusion that a civil servant is one 
whose characteristics/qualifications are given in sub clause (b) 
above and the Civil Servants Act, 1973 applies to all “civil 
servants” wherever they may be but sub clause ‘iii’ excludes a 
person who is a "worker" as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 or 
"workman" as defined in the Workman’s Compensation Act, 1923. 
In the instant case sub-clauses (i)(ii) are not relevant as the 
respondent postman is neither a contract employee nor on 
deputation and, therefore, sub-clause ‘iii’ would be applicable. 
Now, we would find out as to whether the respondent postman is 
a ‘worker’ or a ‘workman’. The term “worker” as defined in the 
Factories Act, 1934 is as under: - 
 
“2. Definitions.- (h) "worker" means a person 
employed directly or through an agency whether for 
wages or not in any manufacturing process, or in 
cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used 
for a manufacturing process, or in any other kind of 
work whatsoever, incidental to or connected with the 
subject of the manufacturing process, but does not 
include any person solely employed in a clerical 
capacity 
in 
any 
room 
or 
place 
where 
no 
manufacturing process is being carried on"; 
 
Civil Appeal No. 508/2020 
7
8. 
 
From the above definition, it is clear that the postman 
does not fall within the definition of “worker” as defined in Section 
2(h) of the Factories Act, 1934. Now we will consider the term 
“workman” as defined in the in the Workman’s Compensation Act, 
1923, which reads as under: - 
 
2.   (1)(n)   “workman” means any person (other than 
a person whose employment is of a casual nature 
and who is employed otherwise than for the 
purposes of the employer’s trade or business) who 
is– 
(i) 
… … , or 
(ii) employed in any such capacity as is specified in 
Schedule II, whether the contract of employment was 
made before or after the passing of this Act and 
whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral 
or in writing; but does not include any person 
working in the capacity of a member of naval, 
military or air forces; and any reference to a 
workman who has been injured shall, where the 
workman is dead, include a reference to his 
dependents or any of them. 
 
The relevant portions of Schedule II thereof read as 
under: - 
 
SCHEDULE II 
[See section 2(1)(n)] 
 
LIST OF PERSONS WHO, SUBJECT TO THE 
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(1)(n), ARE INCLUDED IN 
THE DEFINITION OF WORKMEN 
 
The following persons are workmen within the 
meaning of section 2(1)(n) and subject to the 
provisions of that section, that is to say, any person 
who is– 
 
(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;  
       
 
9. 
 
The term “workman”, as defined in Section 2(1)(n) 
read with Second Schedule of the Workman’s Compensation Act, 
1923, includes any person who is employed in any occupation 
ordinarily involving outdoor work in the ‘Posts and Telegraphs 
Department’, meaning thereby that such person will be excluded 
Civil Appeal No. 508/2020 
8
from the definition of “civil servant” and the Service Tribunal shall 
not have jurisdiction in respect of such person. It is important to 
consider the evolution of the Post and Telegraphs Department. The 
Post Office Department is one of the oldest departments of the 
Sub-Continent working under the Post Office Act, 1898. After the 
independence of Pakistan in 1947, the Post Office started 
functioning as the Department of Posts & Telegraph in 
the Ministry of Communications. In 1962, the Pakistan Post was 
separated from the Pakistan Telephone & Telegraph Department 
and started working as an independent attached department 
under the Ministry of Communications. Later on, the Pakistan Post 
was separated from the Ministry of Communications and was 
made an independent Corporation under the Ministry of Postal 
Services. As a result of reforms introduced in Civil Services 
structure in the year 1972, the Postal Group was formed. The Post 
Office Department provides postal and financial services to the 
people. It also performs other functions which inter-alia include (1) 
Post Office Savings Bank, (2) Postal Life Insurance, (3) Civil & 
Military Pension Payments, (4) Collection of Utility Bills, (5) 
Renewal of Driving and Arms Licences, (6) Issuing PTV Licence, 
etc. Later, an autonomous High Powered Postal Services 
Management Board was established through Pakistan Postal 
Services Management Board Ordinance, 2002. Under the Rules of 
Business, 1973, as per Serial No.27 of list of Ministries and 
Divisions provided in the Schedule under Rule 3(1) thereof, ‘the 
Postal Service Division’ falls under ‘the Ministry of Postal Service’. 
As per Entry No.31A of the Schedule II under Rule 3(3) thereof, 
which provides ‘Distribution of Business among the Divisions’, the 
Postal Service Division has been mandated to deal with the 
business of ‘Posts, including Saving Bank and Postal Life 
Insurance’ and ‘Agency functions on behalf of other Divisions such 
as military pensions, etc.’. As per Entry No.70 of the Schedule III 
under the Rule 4(4) thereof, ‘Pakistan Post Office Department’ has 
been declared as an attached Department of ‘Postal Services 
Division’. Now the question remains whether, in view of the 
changed status of ‘Posts and Telegraphs Department’, a person 
employed in any occupation ordinarily involving outdoor work in 
Civil Appeal No. 508/2020 
9
the Posts would be excluded from the definition of “civil servant” 
provided in Section 2(1)(b)(iii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, 
bringing such person out of the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal 
in terms of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, or in the changed 
circumstances, a person involving outdoor work (which includes a 
postman) working in the Pakistan Post Office under the Postal 
Services Division, which is an attached Division of Ministry of 
Postal Services, is still subject to the jurisdiction of the Service 
Tribunal. In this regard, it would be appropriate to consider the 
objects and purposes of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 as well as 
the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The object of the Civil 
Servants Act, 1973 as mentioned therein is “to regulate the 
appointment of persons to, and the terms and conditions of 
Service of persons in, the service of Pakistan”. The preamble 
thereto provides that “Whereas it is expedient to regulate by law, 
the appointment of persons to, and the terms and conditions of 
service of persons, in the service of Pakistan, and to provide for 
matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto”. Whereas, the 
object of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, as provided 
therein, is to “provide for the payment by certain classes of 
employers to their workmen of compensation for injury by 
accident”. Likewise, the preamble of the Workmen’s Compensation 
Act, 1923 provides that “Whereas it is expedient to provide for the 
payment by certain classes of employers to their workmen of 
compensation for injury by accident”. In the ‘Statement of Objects 
and Reasons’ given at the time of enacting the Workman’s 
Compensation Act, 1923 it was stated, inter alia, that “the 
growing complexity of industry in this country, with the increasing 
use of machinery and consequent danger to workmen, along with 
the comparative poverty of the workmen themselves, renders it 
advisable that they should be protected, as far as possible from 
hardship arising from accidents. The general principle is that the 
compensation should ordinarily be given to workmen who 
sustained personal injuries by accidents arising out of and in the 
course of their employment, which directly relates to nature eof job 
assigned to them. Compensation will also be given in certain 
limited 
circumstances 
for 
disease. 
The 
actual 
rates 
of 
Civil Appeal No. 508/2020 
10
compensation 
payable 
are 
based 
on 
the 
unanimous 
recommendation of the committee …”. Thus, the objects of both the 
laws are different, in that, the object of the Civil Servants Act, 
1973 is to regulate the appointment of persons to, and the terms 
and conditions of service of persons in the service of Pakistan and 
the object of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, is to protect 
the workman, as far as possible, from hardship arising from 
accidents and provide for the payment by certain classes of 
employers to their workmen of compensation for injury by accident 
as they are exposed due to description of job. The definition of one 
law may not be relevant for the purpose of other law but as the 
definition of workman has been borrowed by the Civil Servants 
Act, 1973 from the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, it would 
have same meaning as given in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 
1923. 
As 
mentioned 
above, 
the 
Postal 
Department 
was 
established under the Post Office Act, 1898. Later, an autonomous 
High 
Powered 
Postal 
Services 
Management 
Board 
was 
established through Pakistan Postal Services Management Board 
Ordinance, 2002. However, Section 29 of the Pakistan Postal 
Services Management Board Ordinance, 2002 provides, inter alia, 
that nothing in the said Ordinance shall derogate/affect the 
provision of the Post Office Act, 1898. The Post Office Act, 1898 
having remained in force and the Pakistan Post Office being 
functioning under the Act of 1898, notwithstanding the fact that 
the Post Office is an attached Department of Postal Service 
Division working under the Ministry of Postal Services, the 
employees of Post Office employed in any occupation ordinarily 
involving outdoor work shall remain included in the term 
“workman” as defined in the Workman’s Compensation Act, 1923 
and are excluded from the term “civil servant” as defined in the 
Civil Servants Act, 1973. It would be in fitness of things to refer to 
a judgment of this Court in the case of Muhammad Mubeen-us-
Salam and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, 
Ministry of Defence and others (PLD 2006 SC 602) wherein it has 
been held as under: - 
 
“37. Thus, in view of ratio decidendi of the above 
judgments, it can be held that a worker or a workman 
Civil Appeal No. 508/2020 
11
as defined in Factories Act, 1934 or the Workmen's 
Compensation Act, 1923, notwithstanding the fact 
that the controlling share in the industry vests in the 
Federal Government, shall not be treated as civil 
servant. Similarly, persons on contract, even though 
discharging their functions in connection with the 
affairs of the Federation and likewise, as well as the 
deputationists from the Provinces to the Federal 
Government have not been granted protection of CSA, 
1973, therefore, they were excluded from the 
definition of `civil servant' and as per terms and 
conditions of the person of later category, laid down in 
CSA, 1973 they shall not be entitled to approach the 
Service Tribunal, established under Article 212 of the 
Constitution. It may be noted that this Court in the 
case of Qazi With Muhammad (ibid), has crystallized 
the proposition, leaving no ambiguity in respect of 
`civil servant' or other persons, as per section 2(1)(b)(i), 
(ii) and (iii) of the CSA, 1973 to avail remedy before 
the Service Tribunal in respect of their terms and 
conditions, being in the service of Pakistan, including 
disciplinary matters, as per the mandate of Article 
212(1) of the Constitution. 
 
(Underlined to lay emphasis) 
 
 
 
10. 
 
Now, we will advert to the questions (i) whether the 
respondent is a workman, if so, under which law he will have 
remedy, i.e., the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010 or the 
Industrial Relations Act, 2012, (ii) whether the Industrial Relations 
Act, 2012, where it has been applied to workmen employed in 
Postal Service will override the provisions of the Balochistan 
Industrial Relations Act, 2010 or even Section 1(4)(b) of the Act of 
2010, and (iii) Whether Section 1(4)(b) of Balochistan Industrial 
Relations Act, 2010 in so far as it deals with the workmen of 
Pakistan Post has become ultra vires of the Constitution and the 
Industrial Relations Act, 2012. To resolve these questions, we will 
firstly examine Section 1 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, 
which reads as under: -  
 
“1. Short 
title, 
extent, 
application 
and 
commencement.—(1) This Act may be called the 
Industrial Relations Act, 2012. 
 
(2)     Subject to sub-section (3), it extends to the 
whole of Pakistan. 
 
(3)     It shall apply to all persons employed in any 
establishment or industry, in the Islamabad Capital 
Civil Appeal No. 508/2020 
12
Territory or carrying on business in more than one 
province, but shall not apply to any person 
employed,-- 
 
(a) 
in the Police or any of the Defence 
Services of Pakistan or any services or 
installations exclusively connected with 
the Armed Forces of Pakistan including an 
Ordnance Factory maintained by the 
Federal Government; 
 
(b) 
in the administration of the State other 
than those employed as workmen; 
 
(c) 
as a member of the Security Staff of the 
Pakistan 
International 
Airlines 
Corporation or drawing wages in pay 
group not lower than Group V in the 
establishment of that Corporation as the 
Federal Government may, in the public 
interest or in the interest of security of the 
Airlines, by notification in the official 
Gazette, specify in this behalf; 
 
(d) 
by 
the 
Pakistan 
Security 
Printing 
Corporation 
or 
the 
Security 
Papers 
Limited; and  
 
(e) 
by an establishment or institution for the 
treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute 
or mentally unfit persons excluding those 
run on commercial basis. 
 
(4)     It shall come into force at once. 
 
11. 
 
From the perusal of above provision, it is clear that 
the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 is applicable to all persons 
employed in any ‘establishment’ or ‘industry’, in the Islamabad 
Capital Territory or any trans-provincial authority carrying on 
business ‘in more than one province’ but shall not apply to any 
person inter alia employed in the administration of the State, other 
than those employed as ‘workmen’. Prior to Industrial Relations 
Act, 2012, Section 1(3)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 
2008, provided that it shall not apply to any person employed “in 
the administration of the State other than those employed as 
workmen by the Railway and Pakistan Post”. In Section 1(3)(b) of 
the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, the words “by the Railway and 
Pakistan Post” have been deleted, therefore, now all the persons 
in the administration of the State employed as workmen have 
Civil Appeal No. 508/2020 
13
been made subject to Industrial Relations Act, 2012, instead of 
only workmen of Railway and Pakistan Post. The terms 
“establishment” and “industry” as defined in Industrial Relations 
Act, 2012 read as under: - 
2. (x) “establishment” means any office, firm, factory, 
society, undertaking, company, shop or enterprise, 
which employs workmen directly or through a 
contractor for the purpose of carrying on any business 
or industry and includes all its departments and 
branches in the Islamabad Capital Territory or falling 
in more than one province, whether situated in the 
same place or in different places and except in Section 
62 includes a collective bargaining unit, if any, 
constituted 
by 
any 
establishment 
or 
group of 
establishments; 
 
(xvii) “industry” includes any business, trade, calling, 
employment or occupation for production of goods or 
provisions of services in the Islamabad Capital 
Territory and falling in more than province, and 
excluding those set up exclusively for charitable 
purposes; 
 
12. 
 
The “Pakistan Post Office Department” is an Attached 
Department of “Postal Services Division” which falls under the 
“Ministry of Postal Services” in terms of the Rules of Business, 
1973, 
therefore, 
the 
employees 
of 
Pakistan 
Post 
Office 
Department, being employed in the administration of the State are 
excluded from the operation of Industrial Relations Act, 2012. 
However, only those employees of Post Office are subject to the 
Industrial Relations Act, 2012 who are employed as workmen. 
The term ‘workman’ has been defined in Industrial Relations Act, 
2012, as under: -  
(xxxiii) “worker” and “workman” mean person not 
falling within the definition of employer who is 
employed (including employment as a supervisor or as 
an apprentice) in an establishment or industry for hire 
or reward either directly or through a contractor 
whether the terms of employment are express or 
implied, and, for the purpose of any proceedings 
under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute 
includes 
a 
person 
who 
has 
been 
dismissed, 
discharged, retrenched, laid off or otherwise removed 
from employment in connection with or as a 
consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal, 
discharge, retrenchment, lay-off, or removal has led to 
that dispute but does not include any person who is 
Civil Appeal No. 508/2020 
14
employed mainly in managerial or administrative 
capacity.  
 
13. 
 
Thus a “workman” means a person not falling within 
the definition of employer who is employed in an establishment or 
industry for hire or reward either directly or through a contractor. 
The Postman does not fall within the definition of employer, 
therefore, it is included in the definition of workman and is subject 
to the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. As per Section 33 of the 
Industrial Relations Act, 2012 a ‘worker’ may bring his grievance 
in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under 
any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force to 
the notice of his employer in writing, either himself or through his 
shop steward or collective bargaining agent within ninety days of 
the day on which the cause of such grievance arises. Under 
Section 54(h) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, the functions of 
the Commission include, to deal with cases of individual grievance 
in the manners prescribed in Section 33. Now we shall consider 
the relevant provisions of the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 
2010. Section 1 thereof reads as under: - 
1. 
Short 
title, 
extent, 
application 
and 
commencement.- (1) This Bill may be called the 
Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010.  
 
(2) It extends to the whole of Balochistan excluding 
tribal areas.  
 
(3) It shall come into force at once. 
 
(4) It shall apply to all persons employed in any 
establishment 
or 
industry 
to 
the 
extent 
of 
Balochistan, but shall not apply to any person 
employed-  
 
(a) 
in the Police or any of the Defense 
Services of Pakistan or any services or 
installations exclusively connected with or 
incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan 
including 
an 
Ordnance 
Factory 
maintained by the Federal Government 
except those run on commercial basis;  
 
(b) 
in the administration of the State other 
than those employed as workmen by the 
Railway and Pakistan Post;  
 
(c) 
…………… 
Civil Appeal No. 508/2020 
15
 
(d) 
…………… 
 
14. 
 
From the perusal of Section 1(4) above, it is clear that 
the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010 shall apply to all 
persons employed in any establishment or industry to the extent 
of Balochistan only, but shall not apply to any person employed in 
the administration of the State other than those employed as 
workmen by the Railway and Pakistan Post. Under Section 2(dd) 
of the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010, “worker” and 
“workman” have been defined in almost similar terms as defined 
in the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. As noted above, Industrial 
Relations Act, 2012 is applicable to all persons employed in any 
establishment or industry, in the Islamabad Capital Territory or to 
any other establishment or industry, which being trans-provincial 
is carrying on business in more than one province, whereas, the 
Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010 shall apply to all 
persons employed in any establishment or industry to the extent 
of province of Balochistan. The Pakistan Post Office Department is 
managed by the Pakistan Postal Services Management Board 
established under the Pakistan Postal Services Management 
Board Ordinance, 2002, and rendering services not only in the 
Islamabad Capital Territory but also in all the four Provinces, 
therefore, it is squarely covered by Section 1(3) of the Industrial 
Relations Act, 2012. Section 54(i) of the Industrial Relations Act, 
2012, specifically provides that it shall be the function of the 
Commission 
“to 
exercise 
exclusive 
jurisdiction 
over 
the 
establishment or group of establishments situated in the 
Islamabad Capital Territory and trans-provincial”. As by virtue of 
Section 1(4)(b) of the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010, 
applicability of provincial statute extends to trans-provincial 
department i.e. Post Office, therefore, it is inconsistent with the 
Federal Legislation i.e. Industrial Relations Act, 2012, wherein the 
Preamble, Section 2(xxxiii) as well as Section 54(i) deals with the 
trans-provincial matters. Entry No. 13 of Part II of Federal 
Legislative List empowers the Parliament to enact on any matter 
which is related to inter-provincial matters and co-ordination, 
however, while enacting Section 1(4)(b) of the Balochistan 
Civil Appeal No. 508/2020 
16
Industrial Relations Act, 2010, the Provincial Legislature went 
beyond its competence/power to enact. Article 142 of the 
Constitution is very important, which commands that “Majilis-e-
Shoora (Parliament) shall have exclusive power to make laws with 
respect to any matter in the Federal Legislative List”. This Court in 
the case of Sui Southern Gas Company Vs. Federation of Pakistan 
(2018 SCMR 802) has candidly held that “under the command of 
Entry No. 13 in Part-II of the Federal Legislative List, the 
Federation has competence to enact laws relating to inter-
provincial matters, Entry No. 18 thereof further enlarges the scope 
of said entry, therefore, the Federal Legislature has legislative 
competence to legislate in this regard.” In such a situation, Article 
143 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, also 
becomes relevant. For the ease of reference, it reads as under:- 
 
 
 
“143. If any provision of an Act of a Provincial 
Assembly is repugnant to any provision of an Act of 
Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) which Majlis-e-Shoora 
(Parliament) is competent to enact, then the Act of 
Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), whether passed before 
or after the Act of the Provincial Assembly, shall 
prevail and the Act of the Provincial Assembly shall, 
to the extent of the repugnancy, be void.” 
 
15. 
 
Article 143 of the Constitution envisages that in the 
event of provision of a statute being repugnant to Federal Statute, 
provision contained in the latter would prevail and provision of 
Provincial Statute to the extent of repugnancy would be void. From 
the combined reading of Section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations 
Act, 2012, Section 1(4) of the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 
2010 and Article 143 of the Constitution, it is clear that Section 
1(3) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, where it has been 
applied to workmen employed in the administration of the State 
(which includes the Postal Service Department) will override the 
provisions of Section 1(4)(b) the Balochistan Industrial Relations 
Act, 2010. This Court in the case of PTCL Vs. Member NIRC (2014 
SCMR 535) has held that provisions of Industrial Relations Act, 
2012, have overriding effect on all provincial labours laws. It 
would be in order to reproduce the relevant portion of the 
judgment, which reads as under:- 
Civil Appeal No. 508/2020 
17
“13.       Even otherwise under the provision of Article 
143 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, laws enacted 
by the Parliament have been given overriding and 
superimposing effects over the laws enacted by a 
Provincial Assembly of any of the Provinces and in case 
of any clash or repugnancy between the two, the laws 
enacted by the Parliament shall prevail. Thus, on the 
touchstone of the provision of Article 143 of the 
Constitution, the Act of Parliament has been placed on 
the high pedestal and any Provincial Law enacted by 
the Provincial Assembly shall give way to the Federal 
Law, enacted by the Parliament, if the former is 
inconsistent or repugnant to the latter. Therefore, it is 
held that the provision of Act X of 2012 (the IRA 2012) 
has overriding effect on all Provincial Labour Laws. 
Judged from this angle, we are of the firm view that in 
the present case, the learned Judge in Chamber of the 
Lahore High Court, Lahore while drawing the impugned 
judgment 
dated 
26-11-2012 
could 
not 
properly 
comprehend the intents and objects of the above 
provisions 
of 
law, 
rather 
misconstrued 
and 
misinterpreted the same, resulting into miscarriage of 
justice, the impugned judgment being not sustainable in 
the eye of law is liable to be set at naught.” 
 
(Underlined to lay emphasis) 
 
 
 
16. 
 
This Court in the case of Federal Government 
Employees Housing Foundation Vs. Ghulam Mustafa (2021 SCMR 
201) while dealing with the similar question candidly held that 
“where legislative instruments in competition, one promulgated by 
the Federal and the other by the Provincial legislature, or any 
provisions contained therein, are pitched against each other, the 
test to determine the legislative supremacy or dominance is 
comparatively simple and provided by Article 141 and Article 142 
of the Constitution, 1973 which clearly demarcates the legislative 
edges, competency and supremacy test. In case of conflict 
between Federal and Provincial enactments, privilege of overriding 
supremacy is conceded to the Parliament/Federal legislature 
under Article 143.” Thus, we have no doubt in holding that the 
workmen of the Post Office Department are subject to the 
Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and not the Balochistan Industrial 
Relations Act, 2010. In view of the above finding, Section 1(4)(b) of 
the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010, insofar as it deals
Civil Appeal No. 508/2020 
18
with the workmen of Pakistan Post, is repugnant and void in 
terms of Article 143 of the Constitution and the Industrial 
Relations Act, 2012.  
17. 
 
Finally, the question which remains to be seen is 
whether the respondent had any right guaranteed or secured to 
him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time 
being in force for violation of which the grievance petition could be 
filed by him in the labour court. A broad survey of the Industrial 
Relations Act, 2012, reveals that it specifically lays down a 
condition to agitate grievance before the labour court if a 
guaranteed or secured right of a workman under law or any 
award or settlement is violated. The first proviso to Section 1 of 
Industrial 
and 
Commercial 
Employment 
(Standing 
Orders) 
Ordinance, 1968, specifically bars its application to industrial and 
commercial establishments carried on by or under the authority of 
the Federal or any Provincial Government where statutory rules of 
service, conduct or discipline are applicable to the workmen 
employed therein. Undeniably, the Postal Services Department is 
an attached department of Postal Services Division, which falls 
under the Ministry of Postal Services in terms of the Rules of 
Business, 1973, and is managed and controlled by the Federal 
Government and as such the employees of the Post Office are 
governed by Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules. 
Though the respondent postman was proceeded under the said 
Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, which are 
statutory in nature, however, it would not be hit by the above-said 
proviso of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, as the said Rules 
are promulgated under Section 25(1) of the Civil Servants Act, 
1973, which authorizes the President or any other person 
authorized by him in this behalf to make such rules as appear to 
him to be necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of 
this Act and we have already held in the preceding paragraphs 
that the postman being a workman, he is excluded from the 
definition of a civil servant. Hence, the Rules framed under the 
Civil 
Servants 
Act, 
1973, 
would 
not 
be 
applicable 
to 
workman/postman and the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is 
applicable on the workman/postman. Reliance is placed on 
Civil Appeal No. 508/2020 
19
Pakistan Post Office Vs. Nadeem Ahmed Khan (1995 PLC (Labour) 
205).  
18. 
 
For what has been discussed above, the appeal is 
allowed and the impugned judgment dated 25.08.2018 is 
accordingly set aside by holding and declaring as under:- 
 
(i) 
The postman is not a civil servant rather he is a 
workman and remedy for redressal of his grievance lies 
before the National Industrial Relations Commission;  
 
 
 
(ii) 
The postman has a guaranteed right under Standing 
Orders Ordinance, 1968;  
 
 
(iii) 
The Industrial Relations Act, 2012, will override 
Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010, therefore, 
Section 1(4)(b) of the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 
2010, to the extent as it deals with the workmen/employees 
of Pakistan Post, being a trans-provincial subject/entity is 
declared repugnant and void in terms of Article 143 of the 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, being 
the sole and exclusive prerogative of the Federal Legislature 
to enact laws falling in the Federal Legislative List.  
 
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad,  
 
Announced on 07.12.2021 
Approved For Reporting  
Khurram