' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---Upon a reading of the writ petition and the written statement filed by the respondent No.2 some admitted facts of this case are that father of respondent No.2 was a noted Advocate of the area. His brother had been the Zila Nazim and he is a very close relative of a sitting MNA. In order to contest elections to the seat of Nazim in Union Council No.12, Tehsil Karor Lal Isan, District Layyah, he filed his nomination papers. Along with the nomination papers, he filed a declaration of assets (Annex: 'H') wherein he declared himself to be the owner of agricultural land measuring 160 Acres located in several revenue estates valued at Rupees One Crore with a net annual income of Rs.5,00,000, a residential house valued at Rs.3,00,000 built by himself, a Jeep (stated to be a Pajero) valued at Rs.5,00,000 purchased by himself and gold ornaments worth Rs.1,00,000 belonging to his wife. The petitioner was his opponent in the said election and the respondent No.2 lost the said election whereas the petitioner was elected as the Nazim of the said Union Council. Thereafter, he filed his nomination papers to contest election to a seat reserved for workers in the City District/Zila Council. Along with this document, he filed his declaration of assets (Annex: 'L') declaring that he is owner of only 32 kanals of land in the revenue estate of Deenpur valued at Rs.2,00,000 with a net annual income of Rs.20,000. He also appended certificates (Annexes" 'F' and 'G') with his said nomination papers whereby an Admin. Officer of Messrs Indus Sugar Mills Limited certified that the respondent No.2 has been working as Labour Supervisor Civil Section in Admin. Department w.e.f. 1-1-1999 to 31-7-2004 (Annex: 'F' dated 10-9-2005) and then certifying that he is working as such since 1-8-2004 (Annex: 'G' dated 20-9-2005). An objection was raised by the petitioner who was present at the time of scrutiny on 16-9-2005. The objection was upheld by the learned Returning Officer who rejected the papers. On an appeal filed by the respondent No.2, the papers were accepted by the learned District Returning Officer/Appellate Authority vide order dated 20-9-2005.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the said admitted factual background, it is not believable at all that the respondent No.2 is employed in the said Mills. Further contends with reference to the said nomenclature mentioned in the said certificates (Annexes: 'F' and 'G') that he is a part of employer's establishment as a Supervisor in an Administrative Department and as such falls within the definition of an employer as given in IRO, 2002 and is not a worker or a workman as defined in the said law. It has also been argued that the admitted facts on record would show that the respondent No.2 is neither engaged in work nor he is dependent upon personal labour. Further contention is that it is a case of concealment of assets and the respondent No.2 is not qualified to contest the said election or to hold the said elected office. They rely on the cases of Rana Mukhtar Ahmad v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others PLD 1992 SC 118 = 1992 PLC 154; Messrs Ihsan Sons Ltd. v. Abdul Razak Habib and 2 others 1987 PLC 390; Ganga R. Madhani v. Standard Bank Ltd. And others 1985 SCMR 1511; Muhammad Aqil v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another PLD 1978 Karachi 649; Muhammad Hussain v. The Additional District Judge, Lahore and others PLD 1966 (W.P.) Lahore 128 and Ishwar Singh Bindra and others v. State of U.P. AIR 1968 SC 1450. Mr. M. Arif Alvi, Advocate/learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the. Other hand, argues that his client is a worker within the meaning of IRO, 2002 and as such his status would be of no relevance. He further contends that the word "and" used in the last part of section 2(xli) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, should be read as "or" and shall be deemed to be disjunctive and not conjunctive.
In the matter of assets, he has argued with reference to some documents attached with the written statement that his client had alienated his property before filing the nomination papers for the said reserved worker's seat. He relies on the cases of Abdullah Husain Haroon v. The Provincial Election Authority, Sindh and 3 others PLD 1984 Karachi 472 and Master Said v. Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, District Judge, Jhang and others 2002 CLC 54. He also relies on the said case of Muhammad Hussain PLD 1966 (W.P.) Lahore 128.
3. Before I proceed further, I may note here that records were summoned from the said Indus Sugar Mills Limited. Ultimately, some records were produced showing that the respondent No.2 is employed as a Supervisor and is being paid Rs.5,100 per month as salary. Some record is his EOBI contribution was also produced, These documents were challenged by the petitioner as being forged. I observed in my order dated 15-11-2005 that this matter would require a trial or a deep inquiry which I am not inclined to conduct and that I will proceed in the matter on the assumption that the respondent No.2, is in fact, employed in the said Mills as being claimed by him. The case has been argued and heard accordingly.
4. It will be seen that this case involves resolution of the question as to whether in the stated circumstances of the case, the respondent No.2 can be deemed to be a worker within the meaning of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 and further as to whether he has concealed his assets.
5. Now I deem it appropriate to state here the manner in which the said word was defined in several Local Government Laws.
' In section 3 (lix) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, defined the 'worker' as follows:-- "Means a worker as defined in the IRO, 1969 including self-employed craftsmen like blacksmiths, carpenters, tailors and shoemakers".
' In section 2(11) of the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000, it was defined as follows:-- "'worker' means a person, including a worker as defined in the IRO, 1969, directly engaged or dependent on personal labour for subsistence living."
' In section 2(xli) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, the term has been defined as follows:-- 'worker' means a person, directly engaged in work or is dependent on personal labour for subsistence living and includes a worker as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002."
' A bare reading of the said three statutory provisions would show the legislative intents to widen the scope of the term. This will be particularly evident from a comparison of section 2(11) of the said Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 and section 2(xli) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. There is no manner of doubt in my mind that the "worker" defined in said section 2(11) included a worker as defined in the IRO, 1969 and then he had directly to engage in the personal labour or to be dependent upon personal labour for subsistence living. Now examining the definition in the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, I find that the word "and" used in this provision whether it is deemed to be conjunctive or disjunctive would make little difference, the reason being the method in which the legislature has framed the said provision.
Now it is an accepted rule of interpretation that in a definition or interpretation clause in a Statute, the word "means" is employed to restrict the meanings of the word as stated in the relevant provision while the word "includes" is employed to widen the said meaning. Now applying the said settled rule to the words of the said section 2(xli), the intention of the Legislature appears to be that whereas a worker was meant to be a person directly engaged in work or to be dependent on personal labour for subsistence living but then the Legislature thought it fit to widen meanings of the said clear words by employing :he term "includes" so as to include a worker as defined in the IRO, 2002, within the meaning of a person who either directly engages in work or is dependent on personal labour for subsistence living. Thus, reading the said statutory provision, the argument of Mr. Arif Alvi, Advocate, that since his client is a worker within the meaning of the IRO, 2002, he will be deemed to be a person meant to be a worker in the said definition does appear Lo be attractive.
6. Now having, thus, read the said provisions of law, it remains to be seen as to whether the respondent No.2 is a worker within the meaning of IRO, 2002. According to the written statement, the said certificates produced by the respondent No.2 are genuine documents. Both the said certificates narrate that the respondent No.2 is employed as Labour Superivsor Civil Section Admin.
Department of the said Indus Sugar Mills Limited. Now "worker" and "workman" has been defined in section 2(xxx) of the IRO, 2002, as follows:-- "worker" and "workman" means any and all persons not falling within the definition of employer who is employed in an establishment or industry for remuneration or reward either directly or through a.
Contractor, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Ordinance in relation to an industrial dispute includes a person who has been dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid-off or otherwise removed from employment in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge, retrenchment, lay-off or removal has led to that dispute but does not include any person who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity."
Upon a bare reading of the said provision, it will be seen that a person employed mainly in managerial or in a administrative capacity stands excluded from the said definition. Similarly, the term "employer" as defined in section 2(x) of the 2002, has been given a wider meaning so as to place a person responsible for the direction, administration, management and control of the establishment within its meaning. Reading section 2(x) and section 2(xxx) of the IRO, 2002, together, the respondent No.2, admittedly, being employed as a Labour Supervisor in the Administration Department of the said Indus Sugar Mills Limited stands ousted from the definition of a worker or a workman. I may note here that whereas one of the reasoning given by the learned Returning Officer for rejecting the papers was the said alleged status of the respondent No.2 in the said Mills, the learned District Returning Officer proceeded to reject the said reasoning observing that the learned Returning Officer has referred to the meaning of the term in IRO, 1969 and according to the District Returning Officer, the definition contained in IRO, 2002, would include a Labour Supervisor as a workman because in the Labour Section only the Labour Officer holds the position of an officer. I am afraid the learned District Returning Officer has failed to read the said certificates relied upon by him as well as the respondent No.2. These do not narrate that he is a Labour Supervisor in a Labour Section. On the other hand, it is narrated that he is a Labour Supervisor in a Civil Section in the Admin. Department.
7. Now coming to the said second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have already noted above the contents of the two declarations of assets, admittedly, filed by the respondent No.2 i.e. (Annexures 'H' and 'L'). Now whereas apart from 160 Acres of land, a residential house, a Jeep and gold ornaments mentioned in Annexure 'H', only 32 kanals of land is mentioned in Annexure 'L'. The only explanation offered is that the land has been transferred. There is not a word in the Written statement and nothing stated at the bar about the house, the jeep and the Jewellery. Now reliance is being placed on two mutations for the said explanation i.e. That the respondent No.2 had alienated his land before filing a declaration of assets (Annex: 'L'). Now according to Mutation No.2075 (Annex: R/2), it was entered on 29-8-2005 and decided on the same date by the Revenue Officer and according to this document, the respondent No.2 transferred 47 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land to his brother Muhammad Arslan Khan. The second document is Mutation No.1000 (Annex: 'R/1'). This mutation was entered on 29-8-2005 but admittedly has not been decided so far by the Revenue Officer. Be that as it may, according to it, the mutation has been sanctioned on the basis of Report No.686 being oral sale of 272 Kanals and 17 Marlas of land by respondent No.2 in favour of his brother Muhammad ArsIan Khan for a consideration of Rs.50,000. There is neither any allegation nor any material that any other alienation was made by the respondent No.2. Now notwithstanding the fact that mutation (Annex: 'R/1') had not been sanctioned, the total land involved in both these transactions is 320 Kanals, 14 Marlas or 40 Acres. So, this still leaves 120 Acres of land, admittedly, declared by the respondent No.2 in Annexure 'H'.
8. Above all, as noted by me above, the respondent No.2 allegedly is in receipt of Rs.5,100 as salary from the said Indus Sugar Mills Limited, there is no mention of this income in the said declaration of assets. To my mind, the rule laid down in the case of Abbas Khan and another v. Appellate Authority, District and Sessions Judge, Attock and others 2002 SCMR 398 becomes fully attracted and the respondent No.2 is guilty of concealment of assets in the matter of his nomination and later election to the said seat reserved for workers.
9. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.1 accepting the nomination forms of the respondent No.2 to contest elections to the seat reserved for workers in the Zila Council, Layyah, is declared to be without lawful authority and illegal and is accordingly set aside. No orders as to costs.
10. A copy of this judgment be remitted to the office of the learned Chief Election Commissioner for Pakistan, Islamabad, as also the learned District Returning Officer, Layyah.