P L D 1977 Karachi 314 (PLP)

(b) to form the basis of an efficient canteen organization in war."

8. The personnel who were entitled to be benefited by purchases from this store were and are as follows: (a) Officers and other ranks of the Army, Pakistan Navy, Pakistan Air Force and their families. (b) Ministry of Defence Constabulary. ` (c) Frontier Corps. (d) Azad Kashmir Forces. (e) Pakistan State Forces. (f) Civilian Gazetted and non‑Gazetted officials paid from the Defence Services Estimates and similar officials in the Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Finance (Mily), PARRO Officers, PNG, PWNG, services canteens will sell CSD goods to these categories only on production of written permits issued by Sts/unit Comd and Adm Comd in the case of GHQ. (h) Individuals mentioned in Rule 62(d) of Institute Rules. (i) Such other personnel as may be specially authorised by QMG."

9. That the Assistant Secretary to the Government in the Ministry of Defence (Army Branch) try his letter dated 21‑2‑1969, informed the Quartermaster General that formerly the Canteen Services Pakistan were declared as Government undertaking but since the position has been reviewed and it has been decided that this service should be treated as non‑Government Commercial concern under the control of the Ministry of Defence for the welfare of the Armed Forces personnel. This letter was followed by another letter dated t2‑6‑59 clarifying that the Store Department would continue to be supervised by a Board of Control of Quartermaster General/Chairman in whom the executive control of the Department would vest.

10. In view of the history of the Department and the Constitution of the Board of Control for supervision of the Department by Special Army Order referred to above and the aim and objects and the two letters mentioned above it is contended by Mr. Obaidur Rehman that the Department is one in the nature of service connected with and incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan. He further contends that the construction put by the learned V Sind Labour Court, Karachi, on the letter dated 21‑i‑i959 that it is non‑Government Commercial concern and as such does not come within the purview of section 1(3) of the I. R. O. of 1969 is out of context inasmuch as although it was treated as non‑Government Commercial concern, yet it remains under the control of Ministry of Defence for the welfare of the Armed Personnel. In support of his contention that the provisions of section 1(3) of the I. R. O. are applicable to the petitioner. Mr. Obaidur Rehinan has relied on an unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Razzak v. Pakistan Red Cross Society and another (W. P. No. 332 of 1973) wherein their Lordships, while considering the question whether the Red Cross Society was a service connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan considered the background and history of the Red Cross Society and observed as follows : "This sub‑clause is in three parts; the first part deals with those who are employed in the Police; the second with those in the Defence Services of Pakistan and any services or installations connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan including the ordnance factory maintained by the Central Government; and the third with those employed in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen by the Railways, Posts. Telegraph and Telephone Department. It is the second part which is relevant for the purpose of the decision of this petition. Whereas the opening words of the sub‑clause speak of any person "employed" in any se‑vice of the Armed Forces of Pakistan the words that follow the conjunctive are "any services" which cannot be without a purpose, or the word "employed" has a limited meaning and is confined to the state or position of being a servant while the word "services" is not so limited, but is of wider connotation and means both employ or work done to meet some general need in which parse as are employed or engaged. Therefore, what is intended by the use of the words "any services" is an employ or work connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces. In either case it is that employ or work in which those who are employed or engaged are meant to be excluded otherwise there was no object in using the word "services" instead of "employed"; and that appears to be legislative intention. The respondent being a statutory body and constituted for providing relief and succour to the sick and wounded members of the Armed Forces is beyond doubt a service in the above context; its connection cannot also be denied with the Armed Forces, hence such a service is excepted from the operation of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The Tribunal is therefore correct in holding that the application of the petitioner was not maintainable under sec: ion 25‑A of this Ordinance." Therefore, on the basis of this Judgment Mr. Obaidur Rehman further submitted that the case of the petitioner is identical to the present case and the history, constitution, background, aims and objects of the petitioner are similar to those of the services rendered by the Red Cross Society.

11. I am in respectful agreement with the above observations of their Lordships of the Division Bench regarding the interpretation of the provisions "employed in the Defence Services of Pakistan and any services or installation connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan", and following the same uphold contention of Mr. Obaidur Rehman that by virtue of the provisions of section 1 (3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance the petitioner is exempted from the purview of the other provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and as such the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the Sind Labour Court at Kara,;hi were .t not maintainable under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the petitioner and for the same reasons even the registration of Respondent No. 3 by Respondent No. 2 was an act which was not warranted under the provisions of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969.

12. I am further fortified in my above view by recent judgment of the Lahore High Court in United Builders and Associates v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore and others (1976 P L C 855) wherein a learned Single Judge of that Court considered a similar question as before me with only this much difference that a firm by the name of United Builders and Associates were employed as a contractor to construct Daur Bridge by the Military Engineering Service and the workman of the contractor who was removed from the service had applied to the Junior Labour Court for redress of his grievance under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and in the above background of the case it was observed by the learned Single Judge as follows : ''

4. The express provisions of the law made the Ordinance inapplicable to any service connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan. If the Army is directly engaged on the construction of a road, or a building or is getting it constructed by employing a contractor or sub‑contractors then it is for the time being a matter connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan irrespective of the nature of the construction. As long as the construction lasts and remains the responsibility of the Armed Forces, irrespective of the use to which it will be put when completed the project remains connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces itself. A duty undertaken by the Armed Forces to have it constructed either through its own manpower or by employing others establishes this connection. The source of the finance, the ultimate use of the building are all irrelevant for determining its character while the construction is in the hand and control of the Army Authorities."

13. I had heard Mr. Amanullah Qadri Advocate for respondent at some length on the last date of hearing but today he is absent. His conten tions were that since the finance for the running of the petitioner department did not come from the defence budget the Department could not be deemed to be connected with or being incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan. His other contention was that the civilians are also employed in the Defence Department and are also served by the petitioner therefore, the petitioner establishment is not exclusively connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces. Both these contentions are without force. The course of finance to run the establishment would not change the character of the Department if it is otherwise connected with or is incidental to the Armed Forces. The Department could be financed by the Armed Forces at their option, it could be also financed by the Banks or the funds drawn from any source. The source of finance by itself is not sufficient for holding that the Petitioner department is not connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan. Similarly if the department rendered services to the civilian connected or employed in the defence services would not disconnect or B change thy character of the department if it is otherwise connected with or is incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan. In my opinion for that reason alone it would not bring the case within the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

14. The learned advocate for the contesting respondent namely, Canteen Stores Department Employees Welfare Union had relied on two unreported judgments one of Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 3'2 of 1953 and the other of the Peshawar High Court in 1st Appeal No 434/70. The General Manager Cantt. Stores Dept. v. Lt. Col. Mohammad Zaman Khan (Retd). The learned Advocate had undertaken to produce the certified copies of the ,judgments. However, he has not filed the same and is absent today. Nevertheless Mr. Obaidur Rehman, Advocate for the petitioner has produced uncertified copy of the judgment of Peshawar High Court. In that case the question was whether Lt. Col. Mohammad Zaman Khan (Retd.) who was employed by the appellant as its Manager of wholesale and retail shop at Comila was Government servant or not and it was on the facts of that case, held that the department in question was a private commercial organization and that the claim of Mohammad Zaman Khan that it was a part of the Government was found to be untenable. The provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 never came up for consideration before the Court in that case or in the context in which they have been examined in the present case. Although the judgment of the Lahore High Court is not before me but it has been referred to in the Judgment of Peshawar High Court and the facts of the case are not known. However, it appears that the provisions of section 1 (3) of the industrial Relations Ordinance were not the subject matter of consideration in that case too and I am bound by the view taken the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 332 of 1973.

15. The other contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the registration of the Trade Union by respondent No. 2 was also an act without jurisdiction because the registration granted under section 8 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. 1969 by the Registrar of Trade Union, Respondent No. 2 was in disregard of the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance as the petitioner was exempted by virtue of Section 1 (3) of the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 from the operation of the other provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The registration of the Trade Union in relation to the petitioner could not be affected by the Registrar. Section 8 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance provides as follows: "The Registrar, on being satisfied that the Trade Union has complied with all the requirements of this Ordinance, shall register the trade union in a prescribed register and issue a registration certificate in the prescribed form within a period of (fifteen) days from the, date of receipt of the application in case the application is found by the Registrar to be deficient in a material respect or respects he shall com municate in writing his objections to the Trade Union within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the application and the Trade Union shall reply thereto within a period of fifteen days from the receipt of the objections."

16. A perusal of the above provisions shows that the Registrar is required to register a Trade Union only after he is satisfied that the Trade Union has complied with all the requirements of this Ordinance. Since the provisions of this Ordinance are not applicable to the petitioner therefore C the Registrar could not resister Canteen Store Department Employees Welfare Union, Respondent No. 3 and grant registration certificate to it.

17. It is pertinent to note that persuant to Section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance the Registrar, Respondent No. 2 himself had applied for the cancellation of the registration but the same was turned down by the impugned order.

18. I therefore, declare the order dated 9‑10‑1973 passed by the Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. V initiated in the proceeding by Application No. 140 of 1973, has been passed without lawful authority and is therefore, of no legal effect. I also declare that the registration of the Canteen Store Department Employees Welfare Union granted by Respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance,. 1969 is without lawful authority and therefore, of no legal effect. S. Q. Petition accepted.