1. ' 1&2. This order shall dispose of review application filed by learned counsel for respondent No, 3 under Order XLVII, rule 1 read with section 151, C.P.C., wherein a prayer has been made to review the judgment dated 17-9-2003 passed in this Constitutional petition whereby the same was allowed in terms as mentioned therein; the grounds for seeking the review of the said judgment are that settled principles of law are to the effect that the petitioner Union Council Bolhari (now Union Council Son Walhar-I) comes within the meaning of "Industry" under section 2(xiv), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and its employees who do not deal with the real function of the Union Council/Municipal Body come within the meaning of workmen under the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, as held in 1997 SCMR 65 and PLD 2000 SC 207, and that while the learned counsel for petitioner earlier argued this Constitutional petition, the said settled principle of law was not presented before this Court and in consequence whereof the judgment dated 17-9-2003 was passed erroneously and for such a reason the same needs to be reviewed and further that the same needs to be recalled and in consequence whereof the Constitutional petition itself needs to be dismissed.
2. ' I have heard Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan, Advocate for respondent No,3, Mr. Masood A. Noorani, Additional Advocate-General for official respondents and Mr. Rasool Bux M. Unar for the petitioner; also perused the R&P of the case.
3. ' The facts involved in this Constitutional petition are fully described in the judgment dated 17-9- 2003; to repeat the same briefly, the petitioner-Union Council claims that the employees working under it are civil servants, governed under the efficiency and disciplinary/conduct rules, and not to be taken as workers and workmen within the meaning of Industrial Relations Ordinance, and they cannot form their own trade union, and the letter which was issued by the Registrar, Trade Unions, Hyderabad Unions, thereby seeking necessary information for the purpose of holding the election so that the employees of petitioner-Union Council should be afforded with an opportunity to form their trade union and to elect collective bargaining agent of their own, is illegal and without jurisdiction. While passing the judgment dated 17-9-2003, the counsel for the petitioner-Union Council cited 1997 PLC 608 and 2001 CLC 38, and argued that the municipal employees were thereby treated as civil servants and, Therefore, could not form/have a trade union of their own.
4. ' Lear,ned counsel for the respondent No,3 has now cited 1997 SCM R 66 and also PLD 2000 Supreme Court 207; Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has been pleased to hold in the second- mentioned case that the Lahore Development Authority is not only empowered to prepare, implement and enforce the metropolitan development programme and annual development programme but also prepare, implement or enforce scheme for environmental improvement, housing, water supply, sewerage, drainage, solid wastage disposal, transportation and traffic health facilities-and also sale, lease, exchange and disposeof any property, undertake any work, incur any expenditure; it is also engaged in construction of roads, flats and houses and also for sewerage, water supply, drainage, solid wastage disposal and thereby it was rendering services and comes within the meaning of "industry" as provided in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
5. Thus, providing for the services of sewerage, water supply, drainage, solid waste disposal and for environmental improvement, its workers are held to be coming within the meaning of workers and workmen as defined by the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969; all such workers have been made entitled to form their own trade union; thus, the Registrar, Trade Union, competently issued the letter dated 28-9-2002 to the petitioner Union Council to seek relevant information for the purpose of holding election and taking over necessary measures so that the workers may form their own trade union; adequate remedy of making a representation to the competent higher authorities is available to the petitioner to agitate the point as to whether or not one trade union can be formed for the workers of more than one Union Council.
6. ' Thus the said judgment bears an error apparent on the face thereof and needs to be reviewed and the learned counsel for the respondent No,3 has competently filed this review application; learned Additional Advocate-General has also fully supported this review application and has argued that the case-law recently pronounced by Honourable Supreme Court has finally held that the workers of the Union Council provide the services of sewerage, drainage, roads etc. And come within the meaning of worker and workman and are entitled to all the benefits as well as protection provided under the provisions of .Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (as naw- replaced by the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2001); he has also prayed that the judgment dated 17-9-2003 may be reviewed and thereby it may be recalled and in consequence thereof the Constitutional petition may be dismissed.
7. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited PLD 1968 Lahore 395 (relevant page 400) and 1993 SCM R 1658, and argued that earlier decision held that the employees of Union Council not to be called/known as workers and/or workmen and are not entitled to the protection as provided under the Industrial Relations Ordinance; suffice it to say that the latest case-law pronounced by the Honourable Supreme Court is to be followed; learned counsel for petitioner further argued that the scope of review is very limited to the extent that arithmetical mistake or typing mistake are to be corrected and that the merits of the case once heard and determined by passing of the judgment, the same cannot be reopened by entertaining review application; in reply learned counsel for respondent as well as learned Additional Advocate-General have cited case-law pronounced by Honourable Supreme Court in PLD 1973 SC 110 and PLD 1991 SC 905, Honourable Supreme Court held that declaration of law pronounced by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan undoubtedly is binding on this Court and that failure to notice such an authoritative decision would clearly be an error on the face of the record, which may furnish a ground for review of the decree/order/ judgment. Thus judgment dated 17-9-2003 was erroneously passed; sufficient reason is available to review the judgment as the case-law pronounced by Honourable Supreme Court was not cited for consideration; following the said dictum, the present review application is hereby allowed, in consequence whereof the judgment dated 17-9-2003 is reviewed, which is found to be contrary to the decision pronounced by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan as reported in PLD 1973 SC 110 and PLD 2000 SC 207. Therefore, the same is recalled/set aside and in further consequence thereof the Constitutional petition itself is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs, leaving the petitioner to seek available adequate remedy of approaching higher forums over and above respondent No,2.
8. Review allowed.