DECISION ' This Revision Application is directed against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad, dated 15-3-1988, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant against the order dated 27-10-1987 passed by the learned Authority under the Paymant of Wages Act dismissing the application of the applicant.
2. I have heard Mr. Ahsanul Haq, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Naamatuallh J. Qureshi, Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The claim of the applicant was dismissed by the learned Authority on the I A ground that Payment of Wages Act was not applicable to the respondent Organisation. Under clause (4) of section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act, it would be applicable to a 'Factory' as defined in the Factories Act. Question whether the respondent is factory or not is a question of fact, which could be decided after the, evidence is adduced. Admittedly the applicant moved application before the learned Authority to be allowed to lead such evidence, but no orders were passed on the application and instead application of the applicant was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable as the respondent was not a factory.
4. Mr. Naamatullah J. Qureshi, who appeared for the respondents contends that under section 12 of the Sindh Agricultural Supplies Organisation Act, 1973 the respondent could not undertake any manufacture. No doubt under section 12(b) the respondents are forbidden to undertake manufacture of improved agricultural machinery or equipment. However, under section 12(a) it had to perform certain functions which are reproduced as under:--
12. Functions.--The Organisation shall--
(a) make suitable arrangement, throughout the province, on a commercial basis, for the procurement, transport, storage, and distribution to the agriculturists of improved seeds and fertilizers: provide that as far as practicable the said supplies shall be distributed by the Organisation itself or may permit, distribution of seeds and fertilizers through agencies such as Co- operative Societies on such terms and conditions as it may prescribe.';.
' Under this subsection there is no ban on the respondent not to undertake any manufacturing process. 'Factory' as defined in the Factories Act means 'any premises where manufacturing process is being carried on'. 'Manufacturing process' as defined under subsection (i) of clause (g) of section 2 of the Factories Act is reproduced as under:-- "2(g) `manufacturing process' means any process--
(i) for making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing or packing, or otherwise, treating any article or substance with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal."
It will be seen that even finishing or packing of the goods, procured by the respondents under clause (a) of section 12 would amount to 'Manufacturing Process'. Mr. Naamatullah J. Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondent states that no such manufacturing process is being under- taken by the respondent. However, it is a question of fact. Therefore, the respondents should have been given opportunity to lead evidence on this question of fact as prayed by them. The learned Authority should not have given a finding of fact without affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.
4. For the aforesaid reasons I find that the order passed by the learned I Authority and subsequent dismissal of appeal was not according to the spirit of law and could not be considered as lawful. As such both the orders of the learned Authority and the learned Labour Courts are set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Authority for disposal according to law after affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.