Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. MLN.‑192 of 1969, decided on 23rd September 1969:

---S.2(u)(iii)‑Exception applicable not only to chowkidars but also to those who have been declared by Government to belong to a service of Watch mid Ward or security‑Chowkidar‑Not a workman.

It was contended that the exception applied in respect of only those persons who have been declared by Government to belong to a service of Watch and Ward or Security Service':

Held, on a proper analysis of section 2(u)(iii) it would appear that the Legislature has provided an exception in the case of a chowkidar from being treated as a workman. It has gone further and extended the exception to the case of such employees who belong to a service declared by the Government to be Watch and Ward or Security Service. In other words the Government has a power to declare any service to be Watch and Ward or Security service so as to take out the employees of that service from being treated as workmen for the purposes of Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968.

S. Muhammad Iqbal Shah for Appellants. :.‑

M. S. Bokhari for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 23rd September 1969.

This is an appeal under section 16 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 against an order of the learned Chairman of the West Pakistan Industrial Court (Central Zone), Lahore, dated April 30, 1969. The impugned order was passed on an application under section 11(2) of the Ordinance. The respondent had raised preliminary objection that the application under section 6(8) of the Ordinance was not competent inasmuch as the two of the four persons who had made the application under section 6(8) were not workmen within the meaning of section 2(u) of the Ordinance. The main applica tion was made by the four persons. The Conciliation Officer had not granted Failure Certificate to two of the four persons. The other two persons, it was contended by the respondent, were not workmen and therefore their application should be dismissed. The contention found favour of the learned Court and he dismissed the application on that ground.

2. In order to appreciate the contention of Mr. Syed Iqbal Shah, the learned Representative for the workmen, it would be useful to reproduce section 2(u)(iii). It reads as under:‑

Workman" means any person, including an apprentice, employed in any industry to do any skilled, unskilled, manuals, technical or clerical work, for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceedings under this Ordinance in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or in consequence of, that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person:--

(i)

(ii)

(iii) Who is a chowkidar, (guards‑man) or is employed in service, declared by Government to be Watch and Ward or Security Service,

3. Mr. Iqbal Shah contended before me that the exception applied in respect of only those persons who have been declared by the Government to belong to a service of Watch and Ward or Security Service. There is not much force in this contention. On a proper analysis of section 2(u)(iii) it would appear that the Legislature has provided an exception in the case of a Chowkidar from being treated as a, workman. It has gone lion to the case of such employees further and extended the exception who belong to a service declared by the Government to be Watch and Ward or Security Service. In other words the Government has a power to declare any service to be Watch; and Ward or Security Service so as to take out the employees of that service from being treated as workmen for the purposes of Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968. I would uphold the order, of the learned Court and dismiss the appeal.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.