' HAZIQUL KHAIRI, J.---Petitioner No, 1 is an Upper Division Clerk and petitioner No, 2 a Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Post Master-General, Karachi and are Government Servgnts. Both are aggrieved by Notification No, SRO 14 (1)/85, dated 9-1-1985 and Notification No, SRO 1237 (1)/85 dated 14-12-1985, whereby in pursuance of the special provision under sub-clause (d) clause (viii) of section 2 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969) and in supersession of its Notification No, S.R.O. 390(1)/83, dated the 13th April, 1983 the Federal Government, respondent No,1 had placed such employees of the Pakistan Post Office who belong to secretarial, directorial and supervisory staff and specified in Schedule therein to have fallen within the category of "employer".
In this Schedule under Nos. 14 and 15, are found Upper Division and Lower Division Clerks respectively employed in the office of the Director-General, Pakistan Post Office.
2. It will be worthwhile to examine the said special provision under sub clause (d) clause (viii) of section 2 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Notification No, S.R.O. 390(1)/83, dated 13-4- 1983 reference of which is found in the impugned Notification dated 9-1-1985, as under: "SECTION 2
(viii) Employer in relation to an establishment means any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not who or which employs workmen in the establishment under a contract of employment and includes
(c) .............
(d) in relation to an establishment run by or on behalf of a local authority, the officer appointed in this behalf or where no officer is so appointed, the chief executive officer of that authority; SPECIAL PROVISION: For the purpose of distinction from the category of "workers or workmen" officers and employees of a department of the Federal Government or a Provincial Government or a local authority, who belong to the superior managerial, secretarial, directional, supervisory or agency staff and who have. Been notified for this purpose in the Official Gazette shall be deemed to fall within the category of employers.
(e) in relation to any other establishment, the proprietor of such establishment and every director, manager, secretary, agent or officer or person concerned with the management of the affairs thereof."
3. It was contended by Mr. M.L. Shahani, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are Upper Division and Lower Division Clerks respectively and the very nature of their duties is repugnant to the concept and function of secretarial, directorial or supervisory duties, therefore, their inclusion in the category of "employer" under the said special provision of section 2 (viii) (d) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is patently illegal, mala fide and uncalled for. It was maintained that in this category only higher and lower selection grade officers in BPS-11 and BPS-9 of Post Office are included and petitioners being selection grade officials in BPS-7 and BPS-5 respectively are bound to be excluded from the defmition of the "employer". Reference was also made to memo of distribution of work of members of the staff issued by the office of Post-Master General Metropolitan Circle, Karachi, Pakistan Post Office showing that whereas the petitioner No,1 was required to deal with press, complaints of cases regarding mail, the petitioner No,2 was required to receive and deal complaints and enter into receipt register and transfer them to D-Clerk on the very day of the receipt.
4. Respondents in their piracies comments have admitted that petitioners Nos.1 and 2 are working as Upper Division Clerk (BPS-7) and Lower Division Clerk (BPS-5), but it was contended by them that the employees of the Pakistan Post Office as specified in the Schedule of Notification SRO 1037(1)/85, dated 14th December, 1985 rightly belong to secretarial, directional and supervisory staff and were correctly placed in the category of "employer". Mr. Umer Qureshi learned counsel for respondents urged before us with reference to definitions of "an employer" and "a worker " contained in section 2(viii) and (xxvii) of I.R.O. Of 1969 that the distinction between the two among others lies in the duties performed by them which may not arise by reason of control of one over the other.
5. Mr. Umer Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondents, in support of his contention placed reliance on Muhammad Rafique v Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, reported in 1987 PLC 790, in which a Division Bench of Quetta High Court had held that if an employee of a department does not fall within the categories of superior, managerial secretarial, directional or agencies staff, he cannot be declared as an "employer" by issuing a notification in the official gazette. But in that case the petitioner was holding the post of sub-Engineer previously known as Block Maintainer. Admittedly he Was performing manual work in maintaining the signal boxes with the assistance of two railway employees and drawing more than Rs, 800 per month as salary, but the moot point for determination according to the learned Judges of Quetta High Court was whether "the factum that under the Notification issued under the Special provision to clause (viii) of section 2 of I.R.O., 1969 declaring sub-Engineer of Grade II as "employer" would exclude the petitioner from the purview of the "worker" and "workmen" as defined in clause (xxviii) of section 2 of I.R.O. Of 1969. Learned Judges were, however, mindful that "in order to attract the special provision to clause (viii) it was necessary that the officers and employees of the department should belong .To the superior, marragerial, secretarial, directional, supervisory and agency staff and came to the conclusion that the petitioner in that case belonged to the superior staff. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Umer Qureshi urged before us that the nature of job of the petitioners falls under secretarial work. It is an admitted position that whereas the petitioner No, 1 was required to deal with press, complaints and help CC-II in disposal of public complaints regarding mail, A the petitioner No,2 was entrusted with the job of Daak and complaints and enter into receipt register and transfer it to Daak Clerk on the very day of the receipt. Such being the position, let us see what the word "secretarial" signifies. Neither in the Black's Law Dictionary (Fourth Edition) nor in the Ballentine's Law Dictionary (third Edition) the meaning of secretarial is given. However in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English 1970 Edition at page 1142 the word secretarial appears as an adjective derived from the word Secretary (noun). The meaning of the Secretary as given there among others is as follows:-- "Secretary, n.1 Person employed by another to assist him in correspondence, literary work, getting information and other confidential matters. 2 official appointed by Society or Company or Corporation to conduct its correspondence, keep its record and deal in the first instance with its business.
' Thus by necessary implication a person, engaged in the performance of a job undertaken by a Secretary or ancillary thereto carries out secretarial job. We are of the view that the duties as carried out by the petitioners are not unrelated to secretarial work. We agree with Mr. Umer Qureshi, that the job of the petitioners was in the nature of secretarial work and thus, the petitioners were rightly notified and placed within the category of "employer".
' In the result , we find no merit in the petition which is dismissed with costs.