' This will dispose of Writ Petition No,4105 of 1992 by Lal Khan, petitioner and Writ Petition No,4135 of 1992 by Muhammad Abdullah, petitioner.
2. These are petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution; by them, the petitioners seek to have it declared that the judgment of the learned Election Tribunal, Sargodha dated 6-5-1992 was made without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.
3. The petitioners, Lai Khan and. Muhammad Abdullah were candidates at the Local Bodies Election for the special seat of worker in the Town Committee, ihawarian. After the close of the poll, the petitioner, Lai Khan was found to have secured seven votes and the petitioner, Muhammad Abdullah was found to have secured six votes. Accordingly Lai Khan was declared elected.
4.. Muhammad Abdullah challenged the election of. Lai Khan by tiling an election petition.
According to him, Lal Khan was a farmer and tenant of land and was, therefore, not qualified for being elected as Member of the special seat of worker.
5. The election petition was instituted on 25-1-1992. On 29-1-1992, Lal Khan filed a Recrimination Petition under Rule 11 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979 (to be referred to as the Election Petition Rules). He said that the election petitioner, Muhammad Abdullah, was a dealer in goats; that he was also a shopkeeper and had employed servants at the shop. According to him, therefor; Muhammad Abdullah was not a worker and was not qualified to be a Member.
6. The Recrimination Petition was opposed by Muhammad Abdullah; he raised preliminary objections (i) that Lal Khan had not delivered'a copy of his Recrimination Petition alongwith documents to him; (ii) that the recrimination was not within time; and (iii) that the recrimination was mala fide and after thought.
7. Before the Recrimination Petition, only one issue was framed namely whether Lal Din "was not a worker at the time of filing of his nomination papers? If so, its effect?". After the Recrimination Petition four issues were added; they are: (1) Whether Muhammad Abdullah was also not a worker;
(2) whether Lal Khan had delivered copy of his recrimination, alongwith documents to Muhammad Abdullah; (3) whether the Recrimination Petition was within time; and (4) whether the Recrimination Petition was mala fide and afterthought.
8. Before the learned Election Tribunal, Muhammad Abdullait admitted that La! Khan was a cart driver and Lal Khan admitted that Muhammad Abdullah was a butcher. In view of these admissions, it was felt that no evidence needed to be produced, The Election Tribunal however noticed with concern" (I must confess that I can glean no reason for that concern) "that the very recrimination filed by the respondent did not bear his signatures nor it' was verified by him".'He, therefore, dismissed it under Rule 5(3) of the Election Petitions Rules.
9. Learned counsel for Muhammad Abdullah was fair enough to concede before me that the Recrimination Petition, filed as it was within four days of the election petition, was well within time and that it was not liable to be rejected under Rule 9 of the Election Petitions Rules.
10. One of. The questions raised before the learned Election Tribunal as also before me was that the result of the election had not been published in the official Gazette and, therefore. The election petition was not competent. It does appear that at the date of the election petition, viz. 25-1-1992, the result of the election had not been published in the official ,Gazette. Learned counsel for Muhammad Abdullah has however placed on the record a copy of the official Gazette dated 3-5- 1992 to show that the result was so published before the decision of the election petition by the learned Election Tribunal. 11was held in Malik Ghulam Abbas v Malik Muhammad:Mumtaz; Khan and 2 others (PLD 1980 Lah. 718) which was followed in Muhammad Jamshed Ali and others v. Ghulam Mustafa and others (1983 CLC 209) that if the election petition was premature at the date of its institution but had matured during the pendency of the petition, it could not be dismissed on the "ground of prematurity".
11. The short question before- the Election Tribunal was whether .Lal Khan as a cart driver and Muhammad Abdullah as a butcher, were workers as that expression is defined in section 3, clause
(lix) 'of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979.
12. Section 3, clause (lix) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 defines the expression "worker" to mean "a worker as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, .1969 (XXIII of 1969) including self-employed craftsmen like blacksmiths, carpenters, tailors and shoe-makers".
13. In the opinion of the learned Election Tribunal a cart driver can "by no stretch of imagination be compared with those like blacksmith, a tailor or a shoe-maker"; nor could he be said to be self- employed craftsman, for so held the learned Election Tribunal; "a cat driver does not craft anything.
He may be a self-employed man but he is 'not." a craftsman". Regarding Muhammad Abdullah, it was argued before the learned Election Tribunal that "a butcher may Iv' treated' equal to a tailor".
The learned Election Tribunal however wondered how be paralleled a butcher to a tailor. A tailor is a craftsman. Who cuts the cloth but turns into clothes whereas a butcher simply slaughters the animals". In his opinion, therefore, a butcher was not a craftsman and, therefore, Muhammad Abdullah too was not qualified to contest the election as a worker.
14. In the result, the learned Election Tribunal held the election as a whole to be void under Rule 12 read with Rule 15(A) of the Election Petitions Rules, 1979 "because both the parties did not comply with the provisions of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance and the result of the election has been materially effected by reason of disqualification of both the parties to the worker seat".
15. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that neither Lal Khan nor. Muhammad Abdullah was a worker as that expression is defined in section 2, clause (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The question requiring determination therefore is whether once or both of them were "self- employed craftsmen like blacksmiths, carpenters, tailors and shoe-makers". It is obvious that by the use of the word "including", the meaning of the expression "weaver" 'was enlarged so as to extend it to self-employed craftsme n also. It seems to be equally clear that the mention of blacksmiths, carpenters, tailors and shoe-makers was, by way of illustration; they were intended to serve as example of self-employed craftsmen and not to be exhaustive of the category of craftsmen. That this was the legislative intent is clear from the word "like" which precedes the expression "blacksmiths, carpenters, tailors and shoe-makers". The real question, therefore, is whether Muhammad Abdullah and Lal Khan could be, one as butcher and the other as cart driver, regarded as self-employed craftsmen. The crucial word, it seems to me to be plain is the word "craftsmen", and it is upon the meaning of that word that the answer to that question depends.
16. It was nobody's case that Lal Khan and Muhammad Abdullah were someone else's employees.
They must, therefore, be treated self-employed persons The expression "craftsmen" is not defined in the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and has therefore to be taken to have been used in its ordinary dictionary sense. According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word "craft", among others, means "an art, trade, or profession requiring special skill and knowledge; esp. a manual art, handicraft, sometimes applied to any business, calling or profession by which a livelihood is earned". According to Black's Law. Dictionary, the word 'craft' means "a trade or occupation of the sort requiring skill and training, particularly manual skill combined with a knowledge of the principles of the art".
17. The question that must he asked, therefore, is whether the occupation of Muhammad Abdullah as a butcher and the occupation of Lai Khan as a cart driver is an occupation which requires special skill, knowledge or training, particularly manual skill. The answer in my opinion must be in the negative. To drive a cart in villages hardly requires any, special skill or training; nor docs driving a cart involve any, manual skill. In village life cart driving by children of tender ages, is a scene of common occurrence. I, therefore, agree with the learned Election Tribunal that Lal Khan was not a self-employed craftsman and was, therefore, not a worker. The same is equally true of Muhammad Abdullah. A butcher cannot be regarded to have a special skill and knowledge especially the skill and knowledge of a manual art. In a 'act it will be offensive to good sense to characterize butchery as an art.
18. The only case cited at the Bar of this Court was a case decided by the learned Election Authority namely Sheikh' Inayat Ullah v. Deputy Commissioner (PLD 1980 Jour. 48). I am in agreement with the view expressed in that case of the definition of the expression 'worker', that of the significance of the words 'including' and 'like' and the meaning of the word `craftsman' as used in that definition. There, the question was whether a weaver was a self-employed craftsman and the answer returned was in the affirmative.
19. For these reasons, both the petitions are dismissed.