MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---Facts of the case in brief are that respondent No,2 filed his nomination papers for the reserved seat of "worker" in Municipal Committee Bhera, Sargodha, which were rejected by the learned Returning Officer vide order dated 24.01.2015 on account of giving incorrect value of his assets. Being aggrieved he preferred appeal before the learned Addl.
District Judge/Election Appellate Authority, who vide impugned order dated 28.01.2016 while setting aside the order of the learned Returning Officer, accepted his nomination papers. The validity of the order of the Appellate Authority is under attack in this writ petition
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Appellate Authority erred in law while accepting nomination papers of respondent No,2; that respondent No,2 is running a business of furniture shop where he also employs workers, to manufacture furniture, as such he does not fall within the definition of worker; that respondent No, 2 also concealed his actual assets; that the value of the property given in the nomination papers is also wrong; that the Returning Officer had rightly rejected nomination papers of respondent No,2 which has illegally been set aside by the learned Appellate Authority; that the impugned order being contrary to law is not sustainable.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No,2 submits that the impugned order is well reasoned; that the allegation of non-disclosing of actual value of the assets is disputed question of fact which is not supposed to be undertaken by the Returning Officer in a summary manner; that the learned Appellate Court after applying correct law on the subject has rightly accepted the nomination papers of the respondent and no occasion arises for this Court to intervene with the same in its Constitutional jurisdiction:
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. Irrespective of the fact whether or not respondent No,2 concealed the actual assets, even from the assets disclosed by respondent No,2 in his nomination papers he appears to be a man of sufficient means. Section 2(mmm) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 reads as under:-- "2 (mmm) worker" means a person directly engaged in work or is dependent on personal labour for subsistence living and includes a worker defined in the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 (XIX of 2010)"
6. Section 2(xxxi) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 ' provides as under:-- "worker and "workman" mean a person not falling within the definition of employer who is employed (including employment as a supervisor or as an apprentice) in an establishment or industry for hire and reward either directly or through a contractor whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceedings under the Act 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 managerial or administrative capacity."
7. Having consideration to the meaning of the word "worker" in light of Section 2(mmm) of the law ibid it can safely be said that the worker is a person who is directly engaged in work and dependent on personal labour for subsistence living.Personal labour means that labour is undertaken by the person himself through his own body and not through the body and efforts, of some other human being. According to Chambers 21st Century Dictionary meaning of word "subsistence" is as under: "1. The means of existence; livelihood. 2 meager, barely enough) to survive on."
According to Black's Law Dictionary meaning of word "subsistence is "Support; means of Support.
In the light of the aforesaid meanings and the language of Section 2(mmm) of the law ibid it can safely be concluded that a "worker" is a person, who is doing labour with his own hands or body for survival/living at a bare minimum level and not a person who is organizing some business or employer or an entrepreneur where he may C. Or may not be working himself along with his employees to earn his living.
8. In the, present case, from the own affidavit of respondent No.2 it is crystal clear that he is running a furniture showroom for the last so many years. On Court' s query and specific objection of the petitioner's counsel that a number of persons are working under his control, the learned counsel for the respondent has been unable to satisfy this Court the meaning of Section 2(mmm) of the law ibid rather he is an entrepreneur who is employing 'workers' in his shop. The main purpose for creating special seats of "worker" appears to be to give representation to a class of people who otherwise on account of, inter alia, low income of merely 'subsistence level' are not able to get representation through general elections which unfortunately, these days, requires huge amount of money to contest. If a person who does not fall squarely in the definition of "worker" as provided in the law ibid and is rather a businessman/entrepreneur is allowed to contest the election on a special seat meant for a 'worker' it would tantamount to defeat the very intention of the legislature to give role to a special class of people who are surviving on "subsistence level" in the affairs of local government, at the grass root level, so that they may highlight the issues pertaining to their segment of the electorate, therefore, it would not only be a fraud on the rights of said segment of the electoral-college but also on the legislature.
9. From the available record it is established that the petitioner is an employer/entrepreneur, as he is running a furniture show room/shop, therefore, he does not fall within the definition of "worker", keeping in view section 2(mmm) of the law ibid and section 2(xxxi) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, as such his nomination papers were rightly rejected by the Returning Officer which have illegally been accepted by the learned Appellate Court on the premise which is contrary to law.
10. The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition is allowed and consequently impugned order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 28.01.2016 is set aside and that of the Returning Officer rejecting nomination papers of respondent No.2 dated 24.012016 is restored.