' SALIM KHAN, J.----Shaukat Hussain, Ghulam Habib, Iftikhar Ahmad, Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Haroon submitted petitions before the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court, Haripur which were numbered as 4/1 of 2002, 32/1 of 2001, 33/1 of 2001, 34/1 of 2001 and 36/1 of 2001 respectively. Vide the impugned order dated 18-2-2003, disposing of all the five petitions, the learned Presiding Officer returned the petitions to the respective petitions for their presentation to proper forum, if advised. It was held that an employee of Sarhad Development Authority did not fall under the definition of workman due to lack of Authority being not a commercial establishment.
The petitioners came to this Court with their respective Labour Appeals Nos.4 of 2003, 2 of 2003, 3 of 2003, 5 of 2003 and 6 of 2003. Vide detailed judgment in F.L.A. No,2 of 2003, the said appeal along with the other 4 appeals were dismissed on 28-6-2004.
2. Ghulam Habib and Shaukat Hussain petitioners went to the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. Nos.2109 and 2110 of 2004 where the impugned judgment was set aside and case was remanded to this Court for fresh decision of appeals filed by the petitioners. Ghulam Habib and Shaukat Hussain came to this Court, and, as the case of other three petitioners was the same as that of the two petitioners named above, the other three petitioners were also informed. They came to this Court and filed petitions for restoration of their appeals on the ground that the judgment in all the five cases was one and the same, which was set aside. The petitioners were accepted on the ground that due to setting aside of the impugned judgment of this Court, all the live appeals had revived.
3. The main grievance of all the five petitioners through their petitions was that they were declared surplus and were wrongly dismissed from service without providing them a chance of hearing. The learned Labour Court considered that they were not workmen and could not go to the Presiding Officer Labour Court with their grievance petitions.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the services of the petitioners, being manual workers, were terminated, on which the petitioners filed grievance notice and grievance petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. He further submitted that evidence of the petitioners was recorded, but the respondents did not produce evidence and relied on the cross-examination of the appellants in spite of the fact that they contested the petitions. He also mentioned that the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court returned the petitions to the present petitioners on the ground that the Sarhad Development Authority was not a commercial establishment and that the petitioners were not covered by the definition of workman, and the appeals were also disposed of, but, the case was remanded to this Court vide judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. Nos.2109 and 2110 of 2004 delivered on 22-3-2006.
5. He referred to the Standing Order No,13 as well as the definition of Workman in Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. He also referred to the definition of establishment or industry as given in section 2(xxvii) of the first mentioned Ordinance and contended that only those staff members of an establishment or an industry, who were working in ministerial, administrative or supervisory capacity, were out of the definition of workman, and that the petitioners were not serving the Sarhad Development Authority at Hattar Industrial Estate in that capacity. He also referred to the statement of Muhammad Iqbal who had categorically admitted that the establishment of Sarhad Development Authority relating to Hattar Industrial Estate was running business and conducting functions on commercial basis as the Sarhad Development Authority used to prepare plots and transfer the same to prospective industrialists, with the condition that Sarhad Development Authority would continue to provide facilities of sanitation, water supply and the like.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further referred to the definitions of establishment and industry as provided in section 2(ix) and section 2(xiv) of the said Ordinance. He relied on citation
(b) of PLD 2000 SC 207 and contended that an Authority like Lahore Development Authority rendering service on commercial basis was covered by the definition of establishment and industry for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. He also relied on 1997 SCMR 66 in support of his contention to the effect that a Municipal Corporation was a commercial corporation when it provided services on commercial basis, besides its others services/functions. He also referred to section 2 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 while explaining the definition of workman and commercial establishment.
7. For further elaboration of his point of view, he referred to 1988 PLC 467 regarding the case of a medical institution which provided medical treatment on commercial basis besides its other functions and contended that such medical institution was declared as commercial establishment to the extent of its services provided on commercial basis. He also quoted 1989 PLC 106 in support of his contentions that Lahore Arts Council was declared as commercial establishment, in spite of the fact that Government had declared it as non-commercial entity due to the fact that it provided some services on commercial basis. He also relied on 1990 PLC 689, 1989 PLC 490, 1990 PLC 227 and 2005 PLC 138 in support of his contentions as aforementioned.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that, as the relationship of Master and Servant existed between the parties, therefore, the petitioners did not have a right to go to the Labour Court. He relied on the judgment in Writ Petition No,284 of 1994 decided on 12-5- 1998, Writ Petition No,781 of 1990, PLD 1974 SC 1462, PLD 1977 Lahore 234, 1983 SCMR 1275, PLD 1984 SC 170, judgment in Writ Petition No,194 of 1987 and 2005 SCMR 1049 as well as 2004 CLC 1587. The whole stress of the learned counsel for the respondents was that the petitioners had no locus standi to go to the Labour Court as the relationship of master and servant existed between the parties. He, however, did not name any other forum to which the petitioners, in his view, could go for the redress of their grievance. He also avoided to explain difference between a writ petition and an appeal for the purposes of the cases in hand.
9. The judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. Nos.2109 and 2110 of 2001 shows that the judgment of this Court, declaring that the relationship of master and servant existed between the parties was considered and it was observed that this Court had not decided the appeal as appellate Court, arising out of the judgment of the Labour Court, and should have decided the appeal, instead of non-suiting the petitioners on the ground of relationship between the parties as master and servant, by taking into consideration the relevant law and also by determining as to whether petitioners fall within the definition of workmen under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002.Or the Factories Act, 1934.
10. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. The petitioners were performing manual work at the Industrial Estate, Hattar, under the authority of the Sarhad Development Authority where the said Authority was engaged in commercial activities of preparing and selling plots and providing services to the industries established in the said Estate. All the petitioners were related to the provision of the said services by the Sarhad Development Authority on its commercial side. The petitioners were not the servants of the Sarhad Development Authority for normal administrative official business related to the administration of the main offices of the Sarhad Development Authority. As mentioned earlier, they were directly related to the services provided by the Sarhad Development Authority concerning its commercial concerns.
12. In these circumstances, I hold that each of the petitioners is covered by the definition of workman as provided under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968. The learned Labour Court, Haripur, was the proper forum for submission of their grievance petitions and the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haripur had the jurisdiction to entertain their petitions and decide the same on their merits.
13. I, therefore, accept all the above mentioned appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 18-2-2003 of the learned Labour Court and direct the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Haripur, to entertain the petitions of all the five petitioners-appellants, and decide each of them on its own merits, after providing full opportunity of proper hearing to the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court, Haripur, on 6-7- 2006 for further proceedings. The record requisitioned from the said Tribunal be returned to it urgently.