P L D 1978 Karachi 503 (PLP)

This judgment will dispose of the above petition alongwith Con stitutional Petitions No. S‑11 of 1977 to no. S‑1 l of 11177, which involve common facts and questions of law and the impugned orders dated 8‑3‑1976 and 21‑11‑1974 passed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are also identical. 2. .The brief facts giving rise to the aforesaid petitions are that the res pondent No I in each of the petition was appointed as a Fitter/Mistri in the Field Sub‑Division, Upper Sind. in the Department of Public Works, Mecbnical Division of Government of Sind, in a certain scale of pay. The scale of pay was revised in accordance with the West Pakistan Pay Revision Rules, 1959, and further revised in 1968‑vide West Pakistan Finance Department Notification No FD‑B‑C(1)14/68 dated 2‑3‑1965 according to which pay scale of Fitter and Fitter‑cum‑Mistri were fixed. However, as the post of Nstri (Mechanic) was not mentioned in the said notification a further notification was issued hearing No. FD BC(1)19/68, dated 8‑6.19668 fixing the pay scales of Mistri (Mechanic), Fitter‑cure‑Mistri and Fitter. It is contended that the Fitters including the respondent No. 1 applied to the petitioner No. 1 on 30‑10‑1967 requesting for the change of their designation from Fitter to Mistri, Mechanical. However, this request was turned down and tire respondent No. I and other Fitters continued to hold the poet of Fitters. The petitioner No. 1 later on redesignated the Hitters as Mirtrl Mechanical‑vide order No. F/G92/2114 dated 30‑9‑1969. This order was withdrawn by the petitioner No. 1 on 4‑10‑1969. The respondent No. I and other Fitters opted for the pay scales of Fitters under the West Pakistan Pay Rule!, 1968 and Hereafter West Pakistan Pay Revision Rules of 1968 and lastly for Sind Government National Scale of Pay Rules, 1972. The temporary posts created under the earlier Notification were subsequently converted into permanent posts of Fitters w. e. f. 1‑7‑1969 vide Government of West Pakistan Irrigation and Power Department Order No. 5‑CR S. C. V111/58 dated 28‑12‑1969, whereby all the previous notifications were superseded resulting in the deletion of the post of Mechanical Mistri with effect from 1‑7‑1969.

3. In the above background of facts the respondent No. 1 and other Fitters filed applications on 9‑6‑1974 under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance") before the respondent No. 3 requesting that they may be redesignated as Mechanical Mistri. The respondent No. 3 upon hearing the matter, where the petitioners were represented by one Bashir Ahmed, clerk of the Depart ment without any letter of authority, allowed the applications on 21‑11‑1974 and the Department was directed to fix the pay of the Fitters in the scale of Mechanical Mistri with all arrears and consequential benefits. This order was challenged in appeal by the petitioners which was dismissed by the respondent No. 2 on 8‑3‑1976. This petition and connected petitions are filed challenging the said two orders.

4. The main and only contention raised in these petitions is that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 acted without jurisdiction in the matter on the ground that the Ordinance itself is not applicable to the case of respondent No. 1, who e: facie was a person serving in Public Works Department and on his own showing the post was created with pay and increments to be governed by the relevant Rules 'and Notifications. Ordinance is placed on subsection (3) of section 1 of the Ordinance. The relevant subsection (3) of section I of the Ordinance is reproduced herein below : "

1. Short title, extent, application and commencement.‑(3) It shall not apply to any person employed in . the Police or any of the Defence Services of Pakistan and any services or installations connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan, including an Ordnance Factory maintained by the Federal Government or to any person employed in the administration of the State other than those emp loyed as workmen by the Railways, Posts, Telegraph and Telephone Departments or to any person employed as a member of the Security Staff of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation." On the basis of the aforesaid section 1 (3) of the Ordinance it is contended that the provisions of the Ordinance are not attracted in respect of persons employed in tire "administration of the State" and respondent No. 1 is a person holding such employment. This precise question came up for consi deration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sind Road Transport Corporation and 2 others v. Staff Union and 2 others (1975 PLC 361). In the said case it was contended that the employees of the Sind Road Transport Corporation were employed in the "administration of State" and hence they were outside the purview of the Ordinance by reason of the expression contained in section 1 (3) of the Ordinance quoted hereinabove. Tracing the history of legislation in Pakistan on the subject of Trade Unions and the determination of industrial and labour disputes, it was held that the ex pression "administration of the State" is to be interpreted in the limited and narrow sense of the practical management and direction of the executive machinery or of the operation of the verious organs of the sovereign or the con ducting or carrying on of the details of the Government. In the result it was held that the employees of the Sind Road Transport Corporation were not persons "employed in the administration of the State" and hence were not excluded from the application of or the benefits provided under the Ordinance. A similar question with regard to the applicability of the provi sions of the Ordinance to an operator‑cum‑driver employed in the Provincial Buildings Department of Government came up for consideration before the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal in the case of Employees Union v. Executive Engineer (1975 PLC 285 ) and Mr. Inamullah Khan the learned Labour Appellate tribunal, held that the phrase "employed in the administration of the State" must be given a meaning other than "person employed in Government service." In the light of the judgment in the case of Sind Road Transport Cor poration referred above, it may safelly down that persons un connected with the actual performance of administrative or executive duties of the State and engaged in manual or menial work such as Fitters, Electricians, drivers and sweepers, etc., cannot be considered as persons employed in the "administra tion of the State" and hence outside the purview of the Ordinance.

5. In view of above discussion it is held that the case of the respondent No. 1 in each of the above petitions was covered by the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the applications made under section 25‑A of the Ordinance and the appeals filed by the petitioners were rightly entertained and adjudicated upon in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance.

6. No other contention was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

7. The petition, therefore fails and is dismissed with no orders as to costs. s, A. a. Petitions dismissed.