' SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.---This petition impugns the order dated 7-8-2004 passed by the Learned Sixth Sindh Labour Court Hyderabad whereby the complaint filed by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad Region (Respondents No,2) for deregistration of Respondent No,1 Union in the establishment of the Petitioner Mills was dismissed.
2. In support of the Petition, Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani has firstly submitted that admittedly the petitioner is a project of Army Walfare Trust whose objects are to provide for the beneficiaries of the Trust and their families. The profits generated by the Trust are all transferred to the Welfare and Rehabilitation Directorate of General Headquarters Pakistan Army which thereafter allocates the same to the beneficiaries etc. Of the Trust and their dependents. In this regard he has relied upon the Memorandum of Association of the Trust particularly the objects thereof contained in Clause III, a copy of which is available on the record. He has also referred to the affidavit-in-evidence filed on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Labour Court, a copy of which is also available.
Furthermore per learned Counsel the Army Welfare Trust is administered by serving Army Officers and even the initial investment for setting up the Petitioner was provided by the Pakistan Army. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances learned Counsel has submitted that in terms of section 1(4)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, the same would not apply to the Petitioner Mills as it was exclusively connected to the Armed Forces viz the profits therefrom are being utilized for the benefit of the Army Personnel and their dependants. He has relief upon Canteen Stores Department Employees Welfare Union v. Canteen Stores Department (1983 SCMR 1101), Rehmat Gill v. Quetta Cantonment Board (PLD 1983 SC 133), Controller Stationery and Forms v.
Registrar of Trade Unions Sindh and others (PLD 1991 SC 353), Canteen Stores Department v. Sindh Labour Court No,V (1977 PLC 421), Aman v Federation of Pakistan (1993 SCMR 1837). Divisional Superintendent, Pak, Railway v. NIRC (1997 PLC 307), Railway Worker' Union Regd. v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1995 Lahore 333), Divisional Superintendent, P.R. v. National Industrial Relations Commission (2000 PLC 667), Manzoor Ahmad v. Commander H.Q. South Zone (1996 PLC 22), Din Muhammad v. Manager Army Stud Farm (1978 PLC 261), Abdul Rasheed v. Muhammad Shafi Bhatti 1979 PLC 148 and Zainul Abidin v. Feroze Hussain (1998 PLC 32). Learned Counsel has also submitted that the word "exclusively" appearing in section 1(4)(b) of the Ordinance should be read with reference to the beneficiaries of the Petitioner Mills who are the Army Personnel both retired and serving and their dependants. Supreme Court came to the conclusion that since the Cantonment Board was connected with the Army as Army Personnel resided therein, therefore, it was exempted from application of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 under the old definition. So also in Controller Stationery and Forms, Govt. Of Pakistan v. Registrar. Trade Unions (Supra), it was held that the most important issue was whether or not the establishment was connected with the Army and not the source of funds which was used to set up the same. Again, per learned counsel in Aman v. Federation of Pakistan, Manzoor Ahmed v. Commander H.Q South Zone, Din Muhammad v.
Manager Army Stud Farm Zainul Abidin v. Feroze Hussain, Canteen Stores Department v. Sindh Labour Court No, V. And Abdul Rasheed v. Muhammad Shafi Bhatti (supra) all the establishments were found to have some connection with the Armed Forces and hence exempted from the applicability of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
7. Per learned counsel the word "exclusive" used in section 1(4)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 should have a nexus with the employees or the production of the Factory which is not present in the matter as admittedly 90% of the employees are civilians and so also more than 90% of the sugar produced by the Factory is sold in the open market. Finally learned counsel has submitted that the learned Labour Court has been moved after gross delay and on this count alone the matter should have been dismissed by it. For this submission he has relied upon Lahore Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. Registrar of Trade Unions (1997 PLC 295).
8. For all the foregoing reasons learned counsel has prayed that the petition be dismissed.
9. Learned A.A.-G. Has supported the arguments of Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani and prayed accordingly.
10. I have heard both learned counsel as well as the learned A.A.-G.
11. It would be seen that the controversy in the matter is in relation to the construction/interpretation of Section 1(4) (b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 which incorporates an exception to the application of the Ordinance to any installation or services exclusively connected with the Armed Forces of Pakistan including Ministry of Defence, Lines of the Railways. Of course such interpretation would have to be made keeping in view in the previous exemption given to the services/installation vide Section 1(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which was with reference to their connection with or being incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan. In this respect it would be seen that per the settled law vis-a-viz section 1(3)(a) of the I.R.O., 1969 it has been held in a number of cases that certain installations Aservices were connected with the Armed Forces of Pakistan and hence were held not to be within the purview of the I.R.O., 1969. For example in Rehmat Gill v. Quetta Cantonment Board, (Supra), the Honourable Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the Cantonment Board manages and administers Cantonment areas in which the Armed Forces are quartered which is necessarily a service directly concerned with the Armed Forces and only incidentally with the civilian population residing therein.
Similarly in the case of Canteen Stores Departments Employees Welfare Union v. Canteen Stores Departments, (Supra), the Honourable Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the objectives of the Department was to supply the entitled Personnel with articles of standard quality of daily use and to form the basis of an efficient Canteen Organization in peace and war for troops located any where in the country in operational areas during the war. Consequently the said Department is an Organization clearly connected with the Armed Forces and hence covered by the exemption prescribed in subsection 1(3) of the I.R.O., 1969. It was further observed that in the context of such provision, it is irrelevant whether the Organization is a Government Department or a Private commercial one as certain categories of the employees of the Government are in fact governed by the I.R.O. While certain other private organizations stand excluded from its operation. In the case of The Controller Stationary and Forms Government of Pakistan v. The Registrar Trade Unions Sindh (Supra), the Honourable Supreme Court while referring to the above cited cases held that in order to bring an employee within any one of the categories excluded by Section (1)(3) of the I.R.O., 1969 it is not necessary that the finance or the funds should come from the Government or the installation should be under the control and management of a Government Department and not under that of a corporate body, but what is important is whether the person is employed inter alia in any of the Armed Forces of Pakistan or in services or installation connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan or in administration of the State. Considering the above observations, the Honourable Supreme Court came to the conclusion in the instant case that the Controller Stationary and Forms Government of Pakistan not only supplies printing materials to the various Organizations related to the Armed Forces but also caters to the requirements of all other Government Departments in other State organs/functionaries and which are used inter alia for facilitating communications between the various Armed Forces establishments and other Government functionaries and without which no Government Department can function.
Consequently, the Appellant Department was held to be excluded from the purview of the I.R.O., 1969. Similarly, this Court in the case of Canteen Stores Department Karachi v. Sindh Labour Court '
No, V (Supra), held that the Canteen Stores Department of the Pakistan Army was exempted from the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as it was a service providing various items to the Armed Forces. The case of United Builders Associates v. Presiding Officer of Punjab Labour Court (1976 PLC 855) was relied upon particularly the observation that where the Army has engaged a contractor for the purpose of building a road then for the time being the latter is providing a service to the Army and hence is connected thereto. Likewise, in the case of Din Muhammad v.
Manager, Army Estate Farm (supra), it was held that as the function of the Farm was to produce horses and mules for the Pakistan Army, the same was incidental to the maintenance thereof and consequently out of the purview of the I.R.O., 1969. Again in Abdul Raheed v. Muhammad Shafi Bhatti, (Supra), the Military Dairy Farm Malir Cantt: Karachi was also exempted under Section 1(3)
(a). Finally it would be seen that the NIRC in Zainul Abidin v. Feroze Hussain (Supra), held that the Army Welfare Trust Cement Plant Nizampur was also not within the purview of the I.R.O., 1969 since the beneficiaries of the Trust were serving and retried personnel of the Pakistan Army.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion it would therefore be seen that in order to bring any establishment/installation within the meaning of section 1(4)(b) of the I.R.O., 2002, its objectives would have to be considered along with services/activities with which it is involved. Admittedly the Army Welfare Sugar Mills is one of the projects of Pakistan Army Welfare Trust whose objects per its Memo randum of Association is to provide for the Welfare of its beneficiaries and the families of serving and retired Army Personnel including civilian employees of the Armed Forces and their dependents. Towards this end additional objectives of the Trust are to open schools, to run schools, to award scholarships, to establish boarding houses, Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Libraries, Orphanages, to supply funds to poor and deserving beneficiaries and support those who are physically disabled etc. A general objective of the Trust as contained in Clauses III (xviii) is to invest money in any tiusiness and to carry on any trade, business or industry for the purpose of increasing the assets of the Trust etc. And accordingly engage in a number of commercial and industrial activities as per Sub-Clause (xix) of Clause III. Finally per Clause VI of the memorandum, the income and property of the Trust is to be applied solely towards its objectives. It would therefore be seen that the objectives of the Trust are confined to the welfare of its beneficiaries who are serving and retired Pakistan Army Personnel including civilian employees of the Armed Forces and their dependants.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, in my opinion, where the income of the petitioner is solely applied for the benefit of serving and retired Army Personnel and their dependents then it can be said that the petitioner is an installation exclusively connected with the Armed Forces of Pakistan within the meaning of section (1)(4)(b) of the I.R.O, 2002 and hence excluded from its purview.
Consequently, this petition is allowed, the impugned order set aside and the Registrar of Trade Unions Hyderabad Region is directed to cancel the registration of respondent No,1 Union. There shall be no order as to costs.