1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-Leave to appeal was granted to the two employees of the Quetta Cantonment Board, one a Sweeper and the other a Chowkidar, to examine whether Cantonment Board of which they were employees was performing functions connected with Armed Forces so as to exclude the operation of Industrial Relations Ordinance on the basis of its section 1 (3) thereby disentitling them to the remedy provided under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.
2. ' The facts in C. A, No 43/1980 are that the appellant Rehmat Gill was employed as a Sweeper in Cantonment Board, Quetta. He was charge-sheeted, departmentally proceeded against and by way of punishment dismissed from service on 24-1-1978.
3. ' He filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance in the Labour Court. A preliminary objection was raised by the Cantonment Board, respondent, to the competence of the proceedings in the Labour Court on the ground that the Cantonment Board was discharging functions in connection with the Armed Forces and in view of the provisions made in section 1 (3), the Industrial Relations Ordinance was inapplicable to its employees. The Labour Court overruled this objection and held that no such exemption or exclusion was available to the Cantonment Board and the proceedings were competent. An appeal was preferred but the same was dismissed by the appellate tribunal holding that the Cantonment Boards were not performing any functions directly or indirectly concerned with or incidental to the functions of the Armed Forces and consequently its employees could redress their grievances by resorting to section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Faced with this determination, the respondent invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Baluchistan High Court in the matter.
4. ' In the other appeal (C. A. 44/1980) Bahawal appellant was a Chowkidar. He was also charge- sheeted and departmentally proceeded against and ultimately dismissed from service. He approached the Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. A preliminary objection was raised by the Cantonment Board to the very competence of the proceedings. By an order of the same date the Labour Court rejected the preliminary objection and the appellate Tribunal upheld this rejection. The Cantonment Board thereafter invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Baluchistan High Court.
5. ' The two petitions along with a third came up for decision before the High Court. After an examination of the laws under which the Cantonment Boards were functioning and the nature of their statutory duties the High Court came to the conclusion that the Cantonment Boards were discharging functions which were clearly in connection with the Armed Forces, that the registration of a union of the employees of the Cantonment Board was by itself not decisive of the question whether Industrial Relations Ordinance was at all applicable to the employees or not, though the registration certificate was conclusive proof of the tact of the union having been registered. The constitutional petitions succeeded and it was held that the employees of Cantonment Board could not avail of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance because they stood excluded from its operation by section 1 (3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.
6. ' The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Cantonment Board was like any other municipal body. It was serving within its limits, the civilians as well as armed forces. Its duty to the civilians is equally important and time consuming as is to the armed forces. Cantonment Boards are certainly not discharging their functions relating to administration of the State. The employees of the Cantonment Boards have been in the past dealt with and governed by the Industrial Relations Ordinance and this is borne out by the fact that their union stands registered under the Industrial Relations Ordinance and this has happened to the knowledge of the respondent and without any objection from it. The Cantonment Board, therefore could not turn round when one of its employees, a member of such a registered union, sought redress of the grievance by invoking the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance made for that purpose.
7. The ordinary dictionary meaning of Cantonment (Chambers Shorter English Dictionary) is "the temporary quarters of troops in India a permanent military town". The Cantonments Act, 1924 reflects and recognizes this meaning. The Central Government is authorized (section 3) to declare by notification in the official Gazette a cantonment. Only such place or places can be declared a cantonment where "any part of the regular forces or the regular air force of Pakistan is quartered or which being in the vicinity of any such place or places is or are requited for the service of such forces." The very raison d'etre for a cantonment is the quartering or the requirements in the vicinity concerning the quartering of regular forces. In this context therefore all the duties of cantonments, though some of them may be routine duties of a purely municipal character, are directed towards the quartering of the troops and their requirements. The proportion of civilian population in a cantonment, the extent to which it is affected is not determinative but only incidental to the primary function of the Cantonment Boards. Section 11 of the Cantonments Act makes the Cantonment Boards body corporate. Section 13-A read with section 30 makes the officer commanding the station the President of the Board. The municipal duties of the Boards are prescribed in section 116. Section 117 (2) permits the Cantonment Boards to undertake certain duties and incur expenditure outside the cantonments limits as well on conditions being satisfied.
8. ' Section 1 (3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance provides as follows:- "1 (3) It shall not apply to any person employed-
(a) In the Police or any of the defence services of Pakistan or any services or installations connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan including an Ordnance Factory maintained by the Federal Government."
9. ' The contention of the appellants is that Cantonment Board is not an installation or establishment nor services connected with Armed Forces and service therein cannot, for that reason qualify for exemption. It is true that the Cantonment Board is not an installation but it is difficult to accept that it is not concerned with services connected with defence. The management and administration of the Cantonments vests in the Cantonment Boards. The Cantonments themselves being the quarters of the Armed Forces, their management and upkeep is necessarily a service which is directly concerned B with the Armed Forces, and only incidentally with civilian population residing in .Cantonments. The employees of the Cantonment Board are therefore excluded from the application of Industrial Relations Ordinance. The impugned judgment of the High Court correctly decides the legal question involved in the constitutional petitions. We find no merit in the appeals which are dismissed with no order as to costs.