' This appeal brought under section 11(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 arises from the order dated 15th February, 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. VI, Rawalpindi, whereby he directed the cancellation of the registration of the appellant Union. The grounds on which the learned Presiding Officer, accepted the complaint and issued the above- mentioned direction are that the members of the appellant-Union were employed in the administration of State. Nobody had appeared on behalf of the appellant-Union; therefore, the complaint was procured ex parte. In ex parte evidence Muhammad Arif, Superintendent, appeared as A.W-1 and he stated that according to the decision of Punjab Labour appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. SL-20/75- Punjab on 9tb August, 1975 the employees of Soil Conservation Department fell within the definition of administration of State being the wing of Agricultural Department and could not form a Trade Union and that its existence was in violation of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. On this statement the learned Presiding Officer held, that the members of appellant-Union were employed in the administration of State. Those functions of the Government can be said to be administration of State which no other private person or body is entitled to perform. For example, levy and recovery of tax, preparation of coins and currency notes, establishment of law Courts etc. There is no evidence on the record as to what were the functions and duties of the Soil Conservation Department. The reason given in his statement by Muhammad Arif, Superintendent, is that the Soil Conservation Department being a wing of Agricultural Department comes within the definition of administration of State. This is incorrect that the employees of Agricultural Department are employed in the administration of State. The functions which are being performed by the Agriculture Department or being performed by private persons and bodies also, therefore they are no regal in their nature. If some evidence had been produced showing that there were certain such functions of the Soil and Conservation Department, which no other private person is entitled to perform, there could be some justification to give the finding that the employees of the said Department were employed in the administration of State. During arguments it was stated that the functions of the Soil and Conservation Department are to level agricultural lands and to make them agricultural and for this purpose the Government subsidizes the Department. It was also said that the Department grants subsidies to the private persons in order to encourage them to level the lands and to improve them and to make them agricultural. It is thus evident that these functions are not regal in nature. Whether a Department is or is not an industrial or commercial establish meat is a separate question and has no concern with the fact whether the employees of said Department are employed in the administration of State. t do not think that any such objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that the department is not covered by the definition of industrial or commercial establishment.
2. As a result of the observations made above. I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, remand the case for decision afresh after affording opportunity to both the parties to produce their evidence.