1997 PLP 515 (PLC)

Rahat Ahmed Khan, Deputy Director for Respondent No.

2. Mehmood Abdul Ghani for Respondent No. 3 (absent). Date of hearing: 17th March, 1997. My learned and noble brother Mr. Justice Hamid Ali Mirza vide order dated 24‑12‑1996 was pleased to hold that the parties are put to the notice that on the next date of hearing this petition will be heard if necessary and would be disposed of on the same day or on the subsequent date. Mr. Rahat Ahmed Khan, Deputy Director representing respondent No. 2 states that he has already filed his comments and does not wish to add any comments, in relation to the defence of this petition than what has been stated in the comments. Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 is called absent. Respondent No. 2 refused the registration of the trade which on the ground that Workers Welfare Board is not an industry. Before deciding the issue as to whether respondent No. 3's establishment is an industry or not, no evidence was taken. Whether an establishment is an industry is mixed question of law and facts. There was no evidence before the Registrar by virtue whereof he may have come to the conclusion that the respondent No.3's establishment is not an industry and likewise Sindh Labour Court No.5 vide impugned judgment, dated 18th September, 1996 upheld the objections of the Registrar and held that respondent No. 3's establishment is not an industry. Such order was passed again without any evidence. My attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the applicant to a recent judgment of Supreme Court of Pakistan, dated 10th November, 1996 in which Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to adopt wider meaning of the word "Industry" as given in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. 1997 SCMR 66 (Agriculture Workers' Union v. Registrar and others). In this judgment para meters and contours of the words "administration of State" have been defined. The functions of respondent No.3 establishment are that they distribute cycles, sewing machines amongst the industrial workers. They also construct houses for the industrial workers. They do not perform any function connected with administration of State. Although they are not generating any funds or earning profits through any activity, nevertheless they are performing services, which are within the scope of definition of industry given in section 2(xiv) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In this judgment their Lordships were pleased to approve the ratio of Indian case in Banglore Water Supply reported as AIR 1978 SC 548 (commonly called as meaning of industry case in India) where Kirshna Yer, J. of Indian Supreme Court served entire case‑law and gave broader meaning to the word "Industry" which virtually covers every actuity under the sun. Following the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported as 1997 SCMR page 66, broadly speaking since the activity of the respondent No. 3 fall within the definition of industry I would allow this petition and set aside the impugned judgment and issue direction to the respondent No. 2 to issue certificate of registration to the petitioner's union. Consequently, therefore, in terms of order passed by this Court on 24‑12‑1996 this petition is converted to regular hearing and allowed with no order as to costs. A.A./S‑72/K Petition accepted.