' NAZ1R AHMAD BHArrt, J.-By this petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, the petitioner, Pakistan Paper Corporation Limited, have challenged the order, dated 13-1-1981 of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, N.-W. F. P. Respondent No, 4 whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Director, N.-W. F. P Employees Social Security, respondent No, 1, enjoining upon the petitioner to make contribution in respect of the daily wage labourers of its establishment was upheld.
2. The facts briefly stated are that the provisions of the West Pakistan Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 have been applied to the establishment of the petitioner and he has been paying contribution to respondent No, 1 in respect of the employees covered and secured under the Ordinance but not in respect of the daily wage labourers on the ground that *hese employees are not covered by the term `employee' as defined section 2(8) of the Ordinance. However, this plea was not accepted by respondent No, 1 and the petitioner filed an appeal before the Labour Court in 1980 whicb was rejected on 13-1-1981. Finding no other remedy available to it, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.
3.The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the term `employee' as defined in clause (8) of section 2 of the West Pakistan Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 does not cover the daily wage labourer. His contention was that the establishment of the petitioner besides employing workmen as defined in Standing Order No, 1 of the Schedule to the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 also employed daily wage labourers. In the Standing Orders Ordinance, a workman is classified as under
(I) Permanent. (2) Probationers.
(3) Badlis.
(4) Temporary,
(5) Apprentices.
4. It was urged by him that the above classification of workman did not include daily wage labourer and that the term 'employee' as used in the 1965 Ordinance has to be construed in the light of the aforesaid classification. His other contention was that the establishment of the petitioner sometimes employed workmen from day to day and their service record was not kept and as such those employees are not covered by the term 'employee' as defined therein.
5. We have given a serious thought to the contentions raised by Qazi Muhammad Anwar and we are of the considered opinion that the same are not tenable. The term 'employee' as used in the West Pakistan Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 has been used in a larger sense in order to include maximum number of employees in connection witn the privileges and benefits arising from the Ordinance, whereas on the contrary the classification of workmen as given in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment. (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 is for the purpose; of determining their terms and conditions of service and has got nothing to do with the purport of 1965 Ordinance. `Employee' under 1965 Ordinance means any person working normaly for at least twenty-four hours per week, for wages, in or in connection with tne work of any industry, business, undertaking or establishment, under any contract of service or apprenticeship, whether written or oral, express or implied but does not include -
(a) persons in the service of the State, including members of the Armed Forces, Police Force and Railway servants ;
(b) persons employed in any undertaking under the control of any Defence Organisation or Railway administration ;
(c) persons in the service of a local council, a municipal committee, a cantonment board or any other local authority ;
(d) any person in the service of his father, mother, wife, son or daughter or of her huband ; ( f ) any person employed on wages exceeding one thousand rupees per mensem ;
6. It shall thus be seen that for the purposes of 1965 Ordinance, the term `employees' is very wide and it covers all kinds of persons who work for at least twenty-four hours per week for wages. This term nowhere specific whether the workman should be permanent or temporary or probationer or apprentice or a daily wage labourer. The petitioner may be employing workmen on daily wages but it does not mean that they work from day to day. Moreover, if any workmen works for at least twenty-four hours in a week, whether he is a daily wage or other kind or workman, he would be covered by the term 'employee as defined in this Ordinance. This conclusion would be more fortified when we take into consideration the purposes of 1965 Ordinance which are to provide benefits to certain employees or their dependents in the event of sickness, maternity, employment injury or death by introducing a scheme of social security. We would therefore, agree with the interpretation of the term 'employee' as given by the learned Labour Court, respondent No, 4 and would dismiss this writ petition in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.