Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition No. 1008 of 1984, decided on 28th October, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 28‑5‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 279 of 1984).
‑‑‑S. 21(f) & (e)‑‑Election‑‑Disqualification for‑‑Employee of statutory Corporation financed and controlled by Government elected for special interest seat of worker of Municipal Committee‑‑Eligibility challenged‑ Such person, held, was disqualified to seek election by reason of S.21(f) & (e).
Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 28th October, 1984.
‑The petitioner who is admittedly an employee of the Government Transport Service, Punjab, a statutory Corporation, owned, financed and controlled by the Government of the Punjab, contested election for the special interest seat of worker of the Municipal Committee, Dera Ghazi Khan, and was duly elected.
Ashiq Muhammad one of the candidates, who did not contest the election, filed a petition before the Election Tribunal on 2nd of November, 1983, to annul the success of the petitioner alleging therein that he was ineligible to contest the elections as he had ceased to be a worker at Dera Ghazi Khan on account of his transfer to Rawalpindi. The Election Tribunal by its order, dated 11‑3‑1983 accepted the plea and held that he was disabled to contest the elections for that seat.
Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court, which too was dismissed on the ground that he was disqualified by reason of section 21(f) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, as he was admittedly a worker of a statutory Corporation controlled by the Government. This provision in effect incorporates section 10(4) of the President's (Post Proclamation) Order V of 1977 and pointedly refers to this disability.
The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to section 3, clause (49) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance where "worker" has been defined to mean a "worker" as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, to contend that by that definition he would not be hit by the disqualifications. It is true that the definition of the word "worker" in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is broadly stated to include all types of employment but the disqualification in section 21(f) excludes the category of those workers who are hit by it to seek election. Such a disqualification applies to every one, and no categorisation can be spelt out from section 21(f) by reason of the use of the word "person" therein. There is another disqualification which has not been noticed by the High Court and, that is, section 21(e) of the Ordinance which equally disables the petitioner to seek; election.
Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition, which is dismissed.
M.I. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer