I. MAHMUD, J.-This Constitutional Petition under. Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973) is directed against the petitioner's summary trial by a Naval Tribunal convicting him under section 38 of the Pakistan Navy Ordinance, 1961, and rule 39 of the Pakistan Navy Rules, 1961, and sentencing him to 30 days' R. I. The conviction was approved by the Chief of Naval Staff and the petitioner was dismissed from service.
2. The petitioner Muhammad Qasim was appointed on 22nd February, 1961 as an unskilled labourer in Pakistan Navy Dockyard. He was to be governed by the rules in force applicable to E.T.E.(Extra Temporary Establishment) workmen and labourers of the Pakistan Navy as amended from time to time. He was promoted with effect from 1st December, 1968 as Highly Skilled Sand Blaster-1. (ETE).
The petitioner in collaboration with some other workmen of the Naval Establishment decided to form a trade union to pursue their demands. But, as the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, does not apply to persons employed in Installations connected with the Defence Forces, they formed an Association in April, 1973 with the same aims and objects and the petitioner was elected as Senior Joint Secretary of the Association. The petitioner and others published and distributed circulars listing their demands among the Dockyard workmen and labourers which provoked them to resort to sudden "Tool Down" movements. It is alleged that on 14th June 1973, they created some agitation and disturbances in the Naval Dockyard. The petitioner and eleven other persons were thereafter arrested and tried by a Naval Tribunal on charges that while on active service they took cognizance and active part in an unlawful association on or about 18th April, 1973 and thereby contravened the provisions of rule 39 of the Pakistan Navy Rules and that on 13th and 14th June, 1973, they attempted to stir up a disturbance in Pakistan Navy Dockyard by instigating workers to agitate and go on strike. After holding trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as aforestated. He has, therefore, filed the present petition challenging his conviction by the Naval Tribunal as being without lawful authority.
' During the course of hearing of this petition on an earlier date, we enquired from Mr. Akhtar Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner, whether this petition was at all competent in view of the bar contained in sub-article (3) of Article 199 of the Constitution, under which no order shall be made under Article 199(1), on an application made by a person who is subject to any law relating to Armed Forces of Pakistan in respect of any matter arising out of his service of any action taken in relation to him as a person subject to such law. The contention of Mr. Akhtar Mahmud is that the petitioner was a civilian employed governed by rules applicable to workmen and labourers employed in the Pakistan Navy and as such was not a person subject to Pakistan Navy Ordinance, 1961 therefore, the petition was competent.
4. Mr. Nasrullah Awan, learned counsel for respondent Naval authorities, referred to the relevant provisions of the Pakistan Navy Ordinance, 1961 and two notifications which made the petitioner subject to the provisions of the said Naval Ordinance. Section 2(2)(c) of the Pakistan Navy Ordinance, 1961 reads as follows :- "2. Persons subject to this Ordinance. - (1)........
(2) The following persons, not otherwise subject to this Ordinance shall be so subject to such extent and under such conditions as the Central Government may direct ;-
(c) Persons who are employed by, or are in the service of, or are followers, of, or accompany anybody or member of the Naval Force on active service.
' The directions were given by the Central Government under two Notifications dated 23rd November, 1971, which reads as follows "MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ' S.R.O. 535(1)/71.-In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) of section 2 of the Pakistan Navy Ordinance, 1961 (XXXV of 1961), the Central Government is pleased to direct that the persons mentioned in clause (c) of that sub-section shall be subject to all the provisions of the said Ordinance, except that the punishment specified in clause (h) of subsection (1) of section 80 of that Ordinance, and, of the minor punishment prescribed under clause (k) of that sub-section, punishment numbers 5, 7 and 11 in sub-rule (1) of rule 68 of the Pakistan Navy Rules, 1961, shall not be awarded to any such person.
' S.R.O. 536(1)/71.-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 9 of the Pakistan Navy Ordinance, 1961 (XXXV of 1961) the Central Government is pleased to direct that persons subject to the said Ordinance shall, with reference to any area in or outside Pakistan in which they may be serving and with reference to all the provisions of the said Ordinance and of any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to be an active service within the meaning of that Ordinance."
5. We are inclined to agree with the submission of Mr. Awan that the petitioner, who was employed by the Pakistan Navy Dockyard as a civilian workmen, was a person subject to all the provisions of the Pakistan Navy Ordinance 1961, by virtue of the aforesaid two Notifications. It cannot be denied that the Pakistan Navy Dockyard is a "body of the A Naval Force". A 'body' is defined in Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd Edition, page 301, as having, the following among other meanings : "A group or number of persons or things; a group acting as a fighting unit ; a force : a number of Individuals spoken of collectively usually as united by some common tie or as organised for me purpose ; a collective whole or totality. The definition will hide "a body" such as a Naval Establishment. The object of the first-mentioned Notification of the Central Government was to direct that persons employed by such body shall be subject to all the provisions of the Naval Ordinance. By the second Notification, the Central Government was pleased to direct that such persons shall be deemed to be in active service within the meaning of the Ordinance with reference to any area in which they may be serving. The combined effect of the two Notifications is that the petitioner, who although not otherwise subject to the Ordinance, was made so subject to the Ordinance."
6. In the result, on the preliminary question we hold that as the trial and conviction of the petitioner by the Naval Tribunal was an action taken against him in relation to him as a person subject to the Pakistan Navy Ordinance, 1961 for violation of the provisions, thereof,' the petition is barred under Article 199(3) of the Constitution. The petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.