P L D 2004 Karachi 69 (PLP)

Heard Mr. Rasheed A. Razvi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Salahuddin Khan Gandapur, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there are two types of workmen in the Karachi Dock Labour Board, one are those who are directly under the employment of the Karachi Dock Labour Board and the other are registered as the workers by the Karachi Dock Labour Board so as to allow them to work at port and regulating their work. The learned C counsel further argued that those, who are employees of Karachi Dock Labour Board, may not be qualified in terms of section 14(g) of Ordinance, 2000 to contest election, but those, who are" merely registered as dock workers, but in fact they are in employment of the stevedores, cannot be-disqualified on account of such registration. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 argued that in view of the categorical admission made by the petitioners in their written statement that the petitioners are in service of Karachi Dock Labour Board, there was no need of framing any issue and the learned Presiding Officer rightly passed the orders as the petitioners were not qualified to contest the election. We have given our anxious consideration to the respective arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The Federal Government - in exercise of powers conferred by section 3 of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Ordinance, 1973 framed a scheme known as Karachi Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1973. In the said Scheme the term registered dock workers has been defined as a dock worker whose name is for the time being entered in the register or record, whereas "registered employer" has been defined as an employer whose name is for the time being entered in the employer register. Rule 8(d) of the said Scheme provides that the Board shall be responsible for dealing with all the matters of policy and in particularly may accept registration of newly licensed stevedores on the employer register. Rule 9(o) provides that the Chairman shall have full administrative and exclusive powers to deal-with all matters relating to the day to day administration of the Scheme and in particular to sanction the transfer of registered dock workers from one category to another at the request-of registered employer or on such workers as provided for in the Scheme. Rule 29 of the Scheme reads as under: "

29. Guaranteed minimum wages in a month.

(1) A registered dock worker in Register I shall be paid wages for such minimum number of days in a month as may be prescribed from time to time at the wage rates prescribed, appropriate to the category to which he permanently belongs even though no work may be found for him for the prescribed number of days in a month. The day4 on which work is allotted to a registered dock worker shall be counted towards the prescribed number of minimum days. The guaranteed minimum wages excluding overtime in a month that may be decided by the Board from time to time shall not be less than those guaranteed under any law, award or settlement whichever is more: Provided that such minimum wages guaranteed in any settlement shall not be leis than those guaranteed under the settlement, dated the 8th February, 1972, between the stevedores and workers." Rule 35(1) provides that every registered dock worker shall be deemed to have accepted the obligation of this Scheme and sub-rule (2) of rule 35 provides that a registered dock worker in Register 1, who is available for work, shall be deemed to be in the employment of the Board, whereas rule 36 provides obligation of registered employers and said rule provides that every registered employer shall accept the obligations of the Scheme and further provides that a registered employer shall not employ a dock worker other than a registered dock worker who has been allocated to him by the Administrative Body in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (e) of clause

11. In the case of Vera and Others v. Messrs Kazi & Kazi Ltd. (PLD 1990 SC 435), the Dock Board took the stand before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the dock workers are not the workers of the Board, which is a statutory Authority charged with the duty of looking after the welfare of the dock workers, registering them, regulating their employment with the stevedores, ensuring that the registered dock workers get a guaranteed minimum wages in a month. In order to appreciate the point, we would like to cite an illustration of coolie/loader service provided at railway station. Although their uniform, regulations, wages are fixed by railway authorities, but they are not the employees of railway authorities. In view of above, we have come to the irresistible conclusion that there can be two types of workers with Karachi Dock Labour Board, one, who are under the direct employment with the Karachi Dock Labour Board and other, who are registered workers, who have been registered and enrolled as workers, to work at port, but not drawing salary from the Karachi Dock Labour Board and for all practical purposes their employers are stevedores. We, are not making any detailed comments on this issue intentionally as same may cause prejudice to either of the parties before us for the reason that issue whether the petitioner is an employee comes within the definition of dock workers directly under the Board or is a dock labour under the employment of some stevedores, is yet to be decided after framing of issues and providing of an opportunity of leading evidence if so required. The learned Presiding Officers also apparently committed error of law in passing the orders without providing an opportunity to the petitioners to explain statement made by them in paragraph 6 of their written statement. The-said paragraph is reproduced hereinabove and there is nothing in the said paragraph from which inference can be drawn that the petitioners made an admission of his/their employment with Karachi Dock Labour Board. In view of above, we set aside the impugned order and remand back the case to Election Tribunal to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. H.B.T./M-552/K Order accordingly.