1995 PLP 440 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑S.7(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Registration of Trade Union‑‑‑Registrar's refusal to register petitioner's union as a Trade union‑‑ Labour Court set aside such order of Registrar, allowing petitioner's union to be registered‑‑‑High Court, however, set aside order of Labour Court and restored that of Registrar whereby registration of petitioner's union was refused‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether petitioner's case was covered by earlier pronouncement of Supreme Court relied upon by the High Court or same was covered by the later pronouncement referred to by petitioner's counsel. Civil Petitions Nos. 66‑Q of 1992; CAs. 48‑Q to 67‑Q/93; C.P. No.66‑Q of 1992 and Executive Engineer, PWD v. Abdul Aziz and others CA. 48‑Q of 1993 ref. M.L. Shahani, Advocate Supreme Court and M.K.N. Kohli, Advocate- on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1994. SAIDUZZAMAN. SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The petitioner union is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of High Court of Balochistan dated 31‑8‑1994, whereby the learned Judges of a Division Bench of that Court set aside the order dated 24‑5‑1994 passed by the Presiding Officer of 1st Labour Court, Quetta and upheld the order of Registrar of Trade Unions Quetta, dated 21‑7‑1993 refusing to register the petitioners as a Trade Union under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (I.R.O.). The learned Judges of Division Bench while allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 relied on an unreported decision of this Court passed in Civil Petitions Nos.66‑Q of 1992 and others, wherein it was held that the Veternary Assistants, Stock Assistants and Technical Staff of Live Stock Department could not be said to be persons engaged in the running of an industry and as such they were not entitled to get themselves registered as a Trade Union of Workers. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a subsequent decision of this Court by a larger Bench dated 29‑6‑1994 Civil Appeals 48‑Q to. 67‑Q of 1993 wherein after taking into consideration the definition of `workman' given in the I.R.O., it was held that the persons connected with the construction or maintenance work of buildings, employed in P.W.D., cannot be treated as persons employed in the administration of the State and therefore, such persons are entitled to form a Trade Union under I.R.O. The learned counsel, accordingly, contended that although in the judgment delivered in Civil Petition No.66‑Q of 1992 and others, this Court held that the employees of the Department of Agriculture do not fall within the definition of employees of an industry but the definition of `workman" as given in the I.R.O., which has an important bearing on the matter was not considered. It is also contended by the learned counsel that in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Executive Engineer, PWD v. Abdul Aziz and others (Civil Appeal 48‑Q and others of 1993) decided by a larger Bench of this Court the petitioners were entitled to get themselves registered as a Trade Union under I.R.O. The contentions of the learned counsel need further examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal in the above case. AA./A‑1239/S Order according.