Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. LHR‑63 of 1975 and 1 of 1976, decided on 19th February 1976.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑

‑‑--S. 1(3)‑Employees of Lahore Improvement Trust like Road Roller Drivers, Malis, Baildars, Workmistries, Chowkidars and clerks‑Can not be said to be persons employed in the Administration of the State --‑Not excluded from purview of Ordinance.‑[District Malaria Eradication Officer, Zonal Headquarters, Gujranwula v. Malaria Eradi cation Employees Union (Regd.) (Appeal No. G WA‑82/73/Pb.), and Livestock Farm Labour Union, Okara v. Registrar, Trade Union., Multan Region, Multan 1975 P L C 554 overruled].

District Malaria Eradication Officer, Zonal Headquarters, Gujranwala v. Malaria Eradication Employees Union (Regd.) (Appeal No. GWA‑82/73/Pb.) and Livestock Farm Labour Union, Okara v. Registrar, Trade Unions, Multan Region. Multan 1975 P L C 554 overruled.

The Province of Punjab v. A. M. Khan P L J Tr. C. (Lab.) 101 General Secretary, Provincial Buildings Employees' Union, Hyderabad v. The Executive Engineer, Provincial Buildings Division and another 1972 P L C 285 and Sind Road Transport Corporation and 2 others v. Staff Union and 2 others 1975 P L C 361 ref. Muhammad Rashid for Appellant (in Appeal No. LHR‑63/76/Pb.).

H. R. Haider for respondent No. 1 (in Appeal No. LHR‑63/76/Pb.).

Nemo for Respondent No.2 (in Appeal No. LHR)

Nemo for Respondent No. 2 (in Appeal No. LHR‑63/76/Pb.).

S. Tanseer Asghar for Appellant (in Appeal No. LHR‑1/76 Pb.).

H. R. Haider for Respondent (in Appeal No. LHR‑1/76/Pb ).

Date of hearing: 26th January 1976.

These ate appeals under section 11 of Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, against the orders dated 17‑11‑1975 and 11‑12‑1975 of Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, directing the Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore, to cancel the registration of the Lahore Improvement Trust (Housing Wing) Employees' Union and the Lahore Improvement Trust Staff Union appellants. Since the point of law involved in both these appeals is the same and the respondents are also tile same, they will be disposed of together by this order.

2. The learned Labour Court had directed the Register of Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore, respondent to cancel the registration of the appellant Unions by upholding the contention of the respondent that as the members of both these Unions were public servants, they were deemed to be employed in the Administration of the slate and as such they were hit by subsection (3) of section 1 of Industrial Relations Ordnance, 1969. The learned Labour Court had relied on my previous judgments in the cases District Malaria Eradication Officer, Zonal Headquarters, Gujranwala v. Gujranwala Eradication Employees' Union (Regd) (Appeal No. GWA‑82/73/PB) and Livestock Farm Labour Union, Okara v. Registrar, Trade Unions, Multan Region, Multan (1975 P L C 554).

3. Aggrieved by the above orders the appellant Unions have preferred these appeals.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that all public servants cannot be said to be employed in the Administration of the State . In support of their contention they relied on my recent decision in the case, The Province of Punjab v. A. M. Khan (P L J Tr. C (Lab.) 10) wherein it was held that Mali r Sweepers, Chaukidars, Baildars and the like employed by the Agriculture Department, Lyallpur were not categories of workers covered by the phrase employed in the administration of the State.

In the aforementioned judgment I had relied on the decision of the Bind Labour Appellate Tribunal in the case, General Secretary, Provincial Buildings Employees Union, Hyderabad v. The Executive Engineer, Provincial Buildings Division and another (1972 P L C 285) wherein it was observed: ‑

Keeping in view the intention of the Legislature to confer the benefit of Labour Laws on as many persons as would be covered by the definition of workmen , the phrase Employed in the Administration of the State must be strictly construed. In this connection it is noteworthy that the Legislature did not say any person employed in Government service". The intention of those who framed subsection (3) of section 1 of the Ordinance was not to deprive the benefit of the Ordinance to all persons who are serving the Government. Had it been so they would have said so. The phrase Employed in the Administration of the State therefore must be given a meaning other than persons employed in Government service.

6. Unfortunately when I had decided the previous two aforementioned decision of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal was not brought to my notice. I also find that there is a Division Bench judgment of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court in the case Sind Road Transport Corporation and 2 others v. Staff Union and 2 others (1975 P L C 361) wherein it was observed: ‑‑

The conclusion as that the employees of the Corporation, though the Corporation may be performing functions as an agent of or on behalf of the Provincial Government and its employees are public servants, are not persons employed in Administration of the State" and hence are not excluded from the application of or the benefits provided under the Ordinance.

7. In view of the above both of my previous judgments are no longer good in law. In Appal No. LHR‑63/75/PB the members of the appellant Union are Road Roller Drivers, Malis, Baildars, Workmistries and Chowkidars. In Appeal No. LHR-176/PB the members of the appellant Union are clerks. They by no stretch of imagination can be said to be the persons employed in the Administration of the State.

8. I, accordingly, accept both these apps, set aside orders of the learned Labour Court and direct the respondent not to cancel the registration of the appellant‑Unions.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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