' This judgment will also dispose of Writ Petition No, 155 of 1990 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both of them.
2. The petitioner which is a body corporate under the Employees Old Age Benefits Act, 1976 (Act XIV of 1976), has filed this Constitutional petition to call in question the order dated 6-2-1989 passed by the Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan, whereby the grievance petition filed by respondent No, 2 under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Was accepted and the order dated 21-6-1986 passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed.
3. Respondent No, 2 who was an employee of the petitioner was proceeded against for disciplinary action and was served with a charge-sheet. An inquiry was held and in consequence of the said inquiry he was dismissed from service through order dated 3-10-1987. Respondent No,2 feeling aggrieved filed departmental appeal which was dismissed. He approached the Punjab Labour Court under section 25-A of the I.R.O. This was contested by the petitioner. An objection was raised that the said Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the said petition though no reasons or the grounds for the same were mentioned. The Labour Court after recording evidence of the parties through order dated 6-2-1989 accepted the said petition and ordered the reinstatement of respondent No, 2 in service who was also granted back benefits. Respondent No, 2 in consequence of the said order according to the learned counsel for the petitioner resumed the duties. The petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the said order which was dismissed by order dated 21-6-1989. This order as also the afore-mentioned order of the Labour Court have been assailed in this Constitutional petition.
4. The only point which was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner during arguments was that under proviso to section 1(4)(c) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the provisions of the said Ordinance were not applicable to the petitioner, therefore, the grievance petition filed by respondent No, 2 before the Labour Court was not maintainable and the Labour Court was vested with no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same.
5. In order to appreciate the argument in its true perspective it will be appropriate to reproduce in extenso the said proviso to section 1 (4) (c) of the said Ordinance for facility of ready reference which is as follows:-- "Provided that nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to industrial and commercial establishments carried on by or under the authority of the Central or any Provincial Government, where statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline are applicable to the workmen employed therein."
It is manifest from the provisions of this proviso that it is attracted only where an industrial and commercial establishment is carried on by or under the authority of the Central or any Provincial Government, where statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline are applicable to the workmen employed therein.
6. The main burden of argument presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that since the petitioner is a statutory body created through notification issued by the Federal Government under Employees Old Age Benefits Act, 1976 having framed its own regulations regarding service, conduct or discipline of its employees, as such, the application of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 was excluded in terms of the said proviso. The question which arises for determination is whether the petitioner establishment is carried on by or under the authority of the Central or Provincial Government and that the statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline have been framed which are applicable to its employees in order to attract the said proviso so as to exclude the applicability of the Ordinance to the case of respondent No,
2. Such provision of law which operate as a bar against jurisdiction of a Court according to firmly settled principles of interpretation as laid down by the superior Courts are to be construed strictly. The expression "carried on by or under the authority" used in the said proviso in my opinion means industrial or commercial establishments which are run by Central or Provincial Government directly on their own authority and where statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline have been framed and are applicable to the workmen employed therein. The word "by or under the authority" are synonymous and are inter changeable and have been used to convey the same meaning i,e, the establishment run by the Central or Provincial Government. The petitioner establishment owes its creation to Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976. Under section 4 of the said Act, the Federal Government by notification has to establish or nominate the institution to be called Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution. After once it has been so established by virtue of subsection (2) of the said section it becomes a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal, with powers to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable, and can sue and be sued by the said name. Under section 6 the general direction and superintendence of the affairs of the Institution vests in a Board of Trustees which has been invested with an authority to exercise all powers and do all acts and things which may be exercised or done by the Institution and in discharging its function the Institution is to be guided by such instructions on question of policy as may be given from time to time, by the Federal Government. The Board of Trustees to be constituted under section 7 of the Act consists of seven members to be appointed by the Federal Government by notification which is to be headed by the Secretary or the Additional Secretary in the Labour Division. The Board of Trustees has been empowered to approve the budget estimates, the audited accounts and the annual report of the Institution is also required to be submitted to the Federal Government in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Under section 17 of the Act the Institution shall have its own fund and has been empowered to incur out of the said Fund such expenditure as may be necessary for the purpose of the Act. One of the sources of the funds of the Institution is the income from investment of the moneys of the Institution. Under section 18 the Institution has been empowered to invest any money. The Institution has also been authorised to raise loans and take measures for discharging such loans with the previous sanction of the Federal Government. Under section 19 the Annual Budget is to be drawn by the Institution which is to be submitted to the Board for the approval of the Federal Government. The Institution is required under section 20 of the Act to submit to the Federal Government an annual report of its work and activities. Under section 44 of the Act the Federal Government by notification in the official Gazette may frame rules to carry out the purposes of the Act and the matters mentioned in the section on which rules can be framed do not include the matters relating to terms and conditions of the employees of the Institution. Under section 45 the Board has been empowered to make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or the rules regarding matters mentioned therein which includes the matters relating to the services of the Institution and the manner in which the same shall be organised.
7. From the abovementioned provisions of the Act it is clear that the' Institution on its establishment through notification under section 1(4)(c) becomes a body corporate and as such a juristic person having perpetual succession and common seal, vested with rights and liabilities and can sue and be sued in the said name. Though under the various provisions of the Act, noted above the general superintendence and to a great extent control over the matters and the business to be transacted by the Institution and other functions to be performed by it vests in the Federal Government but the same does not mean that the Institution is carried on by or under, the authority of the Federal Government so as to attract the provisions of proviso to section 1(4)(c) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial. Employment (Standing. Orders) Ordinance, 1968 to render the Ordinance inapplicable. The petitioner Institution is being carried on by or under the authority of the Statute by the petitioner as distinguished from the direct authority of the. Government in exercise of its plenary powers. A similar question arose in respect of National Shipping Corporation in a case reported as National Shipping Corporation v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal (1975 PLC page 1) in which it was held that though the Federal Government had control over the Board but the said Corporation by virtue of such control being exercised by the Government was not an Institution being carried on by or under the authority of the Government. This view was subsequently approved by the Supreme Court in a case reported as Punjab Small Industries Corporation v.
Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal 1988 SCMR page 1725 which was a case of Punjab Small Industries Corporation which was also a corporate body created under a Statute like National Shipping Corporation. The case reported as Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Employees'
Federation v. Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (1991 PLC page 429) is of Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan which is also a statutory corporation created under a Statute and it was held that the same was not an Institution which could be held to have been carried on by or under the authority of the Government though Government enjoyed substantial amount of general superintendence and control over the affairs of the Bank. In other case reported as Syed Yaqoob Ali v. Lahore Development Authority (WASA) 1986 PLC page 693 which is a case of Lahore Development Authority created under a Statute a similar view was taken. It has also been held in judgment reported as Bharat Glass Works (Private) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal. AIR 1957 Cal. 347 that the Central Government 'even if has sweeping control over the affairs of an industry the same does not become an industry carried on by or under the authority of Government or that the same could be held to be Government's own industry owned by it.
8. The condition as contemplated by the said proviso regarding applicability of statutory rules regarding service, discipline of workmen of the establishment is also not satisfied in this case, inasmuch as admittedly no statutory rules have been framed in the present case regarding service matters of workmen of the petitioner's Institution by the Federal Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner faced with this situation attempted to argue that the regulations framed by the Board under section 44 can be construed to have the force of statutory rules in view of section 3(47) of the General Clauses Act which provides that the statutory rules means and includes the regulations having the force of rules. I am afraid the argument is devoid of any force.
The regulations which can be construed to have the force of rules would be only those regulations if framed by the same authority which is competent to frame the rules. In the present case under section 44 of the Act, power to frame rules is vested with the Federal Government and admittedly no rules have been framed by the Federal Government regarding service matters of the workmen employed by the petitioner whereas the Board has framed the regulations which could not be construed to be the statutory rule having not been framed by the same authority which is vested with the power to frame the rules. It can safely be concluded that the said proviso in the absence of such statutory rules applicable to the workman employed in the Institution is not attracted.
9. After having held that proviso to section 1(4)(c) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 is not attracted to the employees of the petitioner's Institution, therefore, the objection based on the same regarding bar of jurisdiction to say that the Labour Court was not vested with jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition of the petitioner under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has no merits which is repelled.
10. The orders passed by the two Courts below do not suffer from any jurisdictional defect or any other illegality calling for interference under D Article 199 of the Constitution. The writ petition fails which is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.