2006 PLP 1262 (YLR)
NADEEM REHAN — Petitioner Versus RETURNING OFFICER UNION COUNCIL NO.60, SHEIKHUPURA
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1262 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J |
| Parties | NADEEM REHAN — Petitioner Versus RETURNING OFFICER UNION COUNCIL NO.60, SHEIKHUPURA |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance (V of 2000) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1262 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance (V of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1262 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1262 (YLR) (NADEEM REHAN — Petitioner Versus RETURNING OFFICER UNION COUNCIL NO.60, SHEIKHUPURA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioner.
- Zulfiqar Ali Khan for Respondent No.3.
- Date of hearing: 10th August, 2005.
- 3. Learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab has opined that the definition clause does not expressly prohibit owning any property.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 2(11) & 14
Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000, Rr.16 & 18
Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XIII of 2001), S.2(xli)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Rejection of nomination papers
Nomination papers of petitioner, were originally accepted by Returning Officer, but District Returning Officer rejected them on the ground that petitioner was not qualified to be called a 'Worker' as he became co-owner in shop left by his deceased father
According to the language of S.2(xli) of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 'Worker' was a person who was directly engaged in work or was dependant on personal labour for his subsistence and was living on the income he earned from that work
No prohibition existed that if such person owned a property, he would be excluded from the definition of 'Worker'
Petitioner was declared 'Worker' and order rejecting his nomination papers, was set aside and he was allowed to participate in election including allocation of Symbol.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order of learned District Returning Officer who in appeal rejected nomination papers of the petitioner which were originally accepted A by the learned Returning Officer. Impugned order was passed on the ground that petitioner was not qualified to be called as a worker as he became a co-owner in the shop left by his deceased father.
2. On the other, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner still works in a factory as a worker to meet the needs of subsistence. He elaborates that petitioner is co-owner of a small shop left by his father along with 8 other legal heirs. He refers to section 2(xli) of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 which is reproduced as under:-- "Worker" means a person directly engaged in work or in dependent on personal labour, for subsistence living and includes a worker as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (XCI of 2002).
3. Learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab has opined that the definition clause does not expressly prohibit owning any property.
4. I have considered anxiously the arguments of the learned counsel and I have also perused and mulled over provision of section 2(xli). According to the language of this provision the ingredients are proof of direct engagement in a work and dependence of the worker for his subsistence living on the income he earns from that work. There is no prohibition that if such person owns a property (no mention of size of property), he would be excluded from the definition. Therefore, in view of my humble interpretation of section 2(xli), I declare petitioner as a worker as covered by the above section of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. Resultantly, this writ petition is accepted and the impugned order of District Returning Officer, dated 3-8-2005 is set aside. The petitioner is allowed to participate in upcoming election including allocation of symbol. H.B.T./N-16/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.