' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the judgment dated 20-5-1987 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 14-2- 1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,1 was rejected. Lahore, for registration of their trade union under section 7 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, hereinafter called "the Ordinance". The application was rejected by the Registrar Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore. The petitioner challenged the said order in appeal under section 8(3) of the Ordinance before the Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore, which was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners were not workers within the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance being connected with the administration of State and, therefore, their union was not entitled to be registered as such. The revision petition filed by them was also dismissed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal vide judgment dated 20-5-1987 on two-fold grounds, firstly, the petitioners failed to produce any evidence as to the functions which they were performing in the Pakistan Mint, and, secondly, that the revision petition was barred by lathes and even otherwise its maintainability under section 38(3) (a) of the Ordinance was doubtful.
3. It is not necessary to go into respective contentions of the parties. The interpretation of the expression "administration of State" in clause (b) of subsection (3) of section 1 of the Ordinance has been explained in Employees' Old Age Benefit Institution v. National Industrial Relations Commission (1988 SCM R 765) wherein it was held that:- "The State has multifarious functions to perform in different fields in discharge of its constitutional responsibilities, affecting the citizens in almost all walks of life. For this reason it is the largest employer of manpower in the country. If all persons who are concerned with implementing constitutional responsibilities of the State, are to be treated as employed in the administration of State within the meaning of clause (b) of section 1(3) of the Ordinance it will, as a consequence, effectively put the largest employer in the country beyond the reach of Labour laws. This could hardly be the intention behind clause (b)."
' The Honourable Supreme Court also approved the interpretation of the expression "administration of State" as has been used in a limited sense in Sindh Road Transport Corporation v. Staff Union 1975 PLC 361. It may however, be pointed out that the expression "administration of State" as used in section 1(3) of the Ordinance, came up for interpretation before the Bench of two Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Controller of Stationery and Forms, Government of Pakistan v. The Registrar, Trade Unions, Sindh and others PLD 1991 SC 353. In the precedent case it was held that:- "In order to bring an employee within one of the categories excluded by subsection (3) of section 1 of the I.R.O. It is not necessary that the finances or the funds should come from the Government or installations should be under the control and management of a Government department and not under the management and control of a corporate body, but what is important is, whether the person is employed inter alia in any of the Armed Forces of Pakistan or in services or installations connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan in the administration of the State.
Keeping in view the functions of the appellant which not only supplies the printing materials to the various organizations relating to the Armed Forces listed at pages 43 and 44 of the paper book, but also caters for the requirements of all other Government departments and other State organs/functionaries, and which are used inter alia for facilitating communications between the various Armed Forces establishments and other Government functionaries and without which no Government department can function, it can be concluded that the appellant's employees are covered by clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (3) of section 1 of the I.R.O. It may be pertinent to point out that in the aforesaid clause (b) of subsection (3) the persons employed as workmen by the Railway, Posts, Telegraph and Telephone Departments, have been excluded from the expression "in the administration of the State" for the purpose of the application of the provisions of the I.R.O. It can, therefore, be concluded that the Law-Makers wanted to exclude the workmen of the departments specified in clause 9(b) and no other workmen who may be employed in the administration of the State."
' It appears that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Employees' Old-Age Benefit Institution (Supra) delivered by a Bench comprising five Honourable Judges was not brought to the notice of the Honourable Bench which decided the case of Controller of Stationery and Forms, Government of Pakistan (Supra).
4. Be that as it may, no evidence has been led by either party as to the precise functions performed by the Pakistan Mint and the members of the petitioners union and, therefore, it is not possible to record a finding in the exercise of Writ Jurisdiction whether or not the employees working in Pakistan Mint are hit by clause (b) of subsection (3) of section 1 of the Ordinance on the basis of the present material placed on record of this Court.
' In view of the above and with a view to avoid protracted litigation, the impugned orders are quashed and the case is remanded to the Registrar Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore, to decide afresh the application of the petitioners in the light of the observations made in this judgment and in accordance with law. The petitioners as well as Pakistan Mint, respondent No,4 herein, shall be at liberty to produce additional evidence in support of their respective contentions. The parties are directed to appear before the Registrar, Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore, on 29th June, 1991.