1986 PLP 349 (PLC)

(ii) Under the K.M.C. Employees Welfare Funds Rules, 1971 as amended vide Sind Government Gazetted Notifica- tion NO.SO(VI)‑2/72/76, dated 4‑9‑1977 (Part‑IV‑A) published on 15‑9‑1977. (iii) Gratuity Rs.3,375 ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ Total: ‑ Rs.8,375 The petitioner also averred therein that the respondent No.l is neither entitled for Provident Fund as her late husband had not made any contribution towards this fund nor she is entitled for encashment of 28 days accumulated annual leave, as there is no such provision in the relevant rules applicable to the employees of the petitioner Corporation. The respondent No.2 overruled the objections and allowed the application of the respondent No.l for a claim of Rs.23,366.40 vide order dated 4‑7‑1979. The respondent No.2 referred the matter to respondent No.3 for the recovery of Rs.23,366/40 from the petitioner as arrear of Land Revenue. The petitioner being aggrieved has preferred this petition. Mr. Muslim Naqvi the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is neither Commercial nor Industrial organization and as such the Standing Orders are not applicable to it. Muslim Naqvi the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following cases in support of his contention. (1) C.P. No. 1709/78 Muhammad Nawaz and others v. Sind Labour Appellate Court and others. (2) C.P. No. S‑90/82 K.M.C. v. Mst. Sughrao Bibi and others. (3) C.P. No. D‑1738/789 K.M.C. v. Mst. Noor Jehan and 2 others. On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Ahmed the learned counsel for the respondent No.l has submitted that, the Standing Orders are applicable to the petitioner‑Corporation. Mr. Muhammad Ahmed the learned counsel for the respondent No‑.1 has placed reliance an unreported judgment dated 24‑10‑1984 in Constitutional Petition No. D‑177 of 1980 Bibi Abida v. The Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 20 others. Reverting to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the proviso to subsection (c) of section 1 of the Ordinance, 1968, the said Ordinance is not applicable to petitioner Corporation for the reasons that it has its own, statutory Rules, proviso to clause (c) of section 1 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968, provides that nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to Industrial and Commercial establishment carried on by or under the authority rules of service, conduct or discipline are applicable to the workman employed therein. I am of the view that the petitioner can be termed as an establishment which is being run under the Provisional Government though it has a corporation status. Reverting to the last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has framed Statutory Rules. It is pertinent to note that the Sind Government framed K.M.C. Employees Welfare Fund Rules, 1971 in persuance of the powers conferred by section 29 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 (Ordinance X of 1960) read with section 121 and item 9 of the fourth Schedule thereto and Articles 46(4) of the Basic Democracies Orders, 1959. Mr. Muhammad Ahmed has contended that the' petitioners' Corporation has not framed the Statutes Rules and placed reliance on the unreported judgment in Constitutional Petition No. D‑177 of 1980 Bibi Abida v. The Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others. The brief facts of the case are that the Karachi Development Authority framed (Employees Service) Regulation, 1972. The contention of the learned counsel for the K.D.A. that the claim of Mat. Abida's husband was not covered under the Regulation framed by the K.D.A. Their Lordships of the Division Bench after going through the Regulations came to the conclusion that the K.D.A. did not frame any Regulation which would cover the items of the claim namely Group Insurance and the interest awarded in respect thereof. In the Instant case the petitioner framed statutory Rules and according to the Rules an amount of Rs.5,000 is payable under the Group Insurance Scheme. In this view of the matter the respondent No.2 failed to determine the objections of the petitioner in accordance with the aforesaid Rules framed by the petitioner. The disposal of the objections was not, therefore, legal. The Constitutional Petition No.S‑33 is allowed and the impugned order dated 7‑4‑1979 is declared to have been assumed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The parties will bear their own costs. A.A. Petition allowed.