2017 PLP 948 (MLD)

ATIR MAHMOOD, J.

Through this single judgment, I intend to dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.2772 and 2773 of 2016 as common questions of law and fact are involved therein.

2. Brief facts of both the cases are that the petitioner Ch. Sultan Mahmood and respondent No.3/writ petitioner in connected W.P. No.2772 of 2016 Mian Rehan Ali Ansar (hereinafter called the 'rival candidate') filed their nomination papers for the seat of 'Worker' in Municipal Committee Jhelum. Nomination papers of the petitioner as well as the rival candidate were rejected by the Returning Officer on 18.10.2016. Both the candidates preferred appeal which also were dismissed vide order dated 22.10.2016. Hence these writ petitions have been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders are against law; that the petitioner duly falls within the ambit of 'Worker' but he was knocked out illegally and unlawfully on flimsy grounds, therefore, this writ petition be allowed, the impugned orders be set aside and the nomination papers of the petitioner be accepted. Same is the prayer of learned counsel for rival candidate. However, both sides assert that the other is ineligible being not falling within the definition of 'Worker'.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Election Commission has vehemently opposed these writ petitions mainly on the ground that the petitioner does not come within the definition of 'Worker'.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. The only ground on the basis of which nomination papers of the petitioner as well as the rival candidate were rejected is that they don't fall within the definition of 'Worker' contained in section 2(mmm) of The Punjab Local Government Act, 2013. The said definition is reproduced below:-- "2(ii) "Worker" means a person directly engaged in work or is dependant on personal labour for subsistence living and includes a worker as defined in the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 (XIX of 2010)" (Underline is mine) This is evident from the above definition that the 'Worker' is a person who is directly engaged in work or is dependant upon labour for his subsistence living. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he, as per his own nomination papers, owns 7 marla plot, 7 marla residential house, Motor Bike, five tola gold jewellery, Bank Accounts is JS Bank Limited and United Bank Limited. In addition thereto, he runs AK College, G.T. Road, Dina and alos holds an NTN. Whereas, the rival candidate owns 25 kanals of land which is alleged to be on roadside valuing Rs.40,00,000/- and Bank Account in Meezan Bank Limited. In view of the aforesaid, it becomes crystal clear that the petitioner as well as the rival candidate do not subsist on the income being a 'Worker' rather they seem to be men of means. They have even not mentioned in their affidavits that their subsistence is on the work being 'Workers'. In my considered view, the seat reserved for workers is meant for those who belong to a specific class, therefore, the persons belonging to such class should only be allowed to contest the election against such seats. If persons not belonging to a class for which the seats have been reserved are allowed to contest election against the seats reserved for such class, the purpose of reserving the seat for such class will not only fall but also the rights of such class protected by the legislature are likely to injure severely. Therefore, the nomination papers of the petitioner as well as his rival candidate having sound financial status and not belong to class of 'Workers' for which the seat of 'Worker' has been reserved by legislature were rightly rejected.

7. There are concurrent findings against the petitioner as well as his rival candidate. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for rival candidate could not point out any illegality in the impugned orders. Therefore, both the writ petitions in hand having no force are dismissed. ZC/S-84/L Petition dismissed.