SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order of learned District Returning Officer who in appeal rejected nomination papers of the petitioner which were originally accepted by the learned Returning Officer. Impugned order was passed on the ground that petitioner was not qualified to be called as a worker as he became a co-owner in the shop left by his deceased father.
2. On the other, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner still works in a factory as a worker to meet the needs of subsistence. He elaborates that petitioner is co-owner of a small shop left by his father along with 8 other legal heirs. He refers to section 2(xli) of Punjab Local Government Ordinance. 2001 which is reproduced as under:-- "Worker" means a person directly engaged in work or in dependent on personal labour, for subsistence living and includes a worker as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (XCI of 2002).
3. Learned Additional Advocate- General, Punjab has opined that the definition clause does not expressly prohibit owning any property.
4. I have considered anxiously the arguments of the learned counsel and I have also perused and mulled over provision of section 2(xli). According to the language of this provision the ingredients are proof of direct engagement in a work and dependence of the worker for his subsistence living on the income he earns from that work. There is no prohibition that if such person owns a property (no mention of size of property), he would be excluded from the definition. Therefore, in view of my humble interpretation of section 2(xli), I declare petitioner as a worker as covered by the above section of the Punjab /Government Ordinance, 2001. Resultantly, this writ petition is accepted and the impugned order of District Returning Officer, dated 3-8-2005 is set aside. The petitioner is allowed to participate in upcoming election including allocation of symbol.