' Javeed Zia, petitioner herein, is contesting election for the worker's seat of Municipal Committee, Ahmedpur East. Muhammad Saeed, respondent No,2, and Mistri Maqsood Ahmed, respondent No,3, are also rival candidates for the said seat. Nomination papers of all of them have been accepted by the Returning Officer.
2. ~~The grievance of the petitioner is that Muhammad Saeed, respondent No,2 does labour on daily wages whereas Mistri Maqsood Ahmed, respondent No,3, is a craftsman as he has been shown as "Lohar" in the electoral roll, therefore, both respondents Nos.2 and 3 are not "worker" according to the definitions given in section 3(lix) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, and section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXXIII of 1969). According to the definition in section 3 (lix) of the Ordinance, of 1979 a worker includes "self-employed craftsman like blacksmith, carpenter, tailor and shoemaker". Admittedly Mistri Maqsood Ahmed, respondent No,3, is a blacksmith, therefore, prima facie he is a worker and can contest the election for worker's seat.
Learned counsel states that the definition has since been amended but he has not shown any Gazette Notification where the word "blacksmith" has been deleted from the said definition- clause.~~
3. ~~As for Muhammad Saeed, respondent No,2, his profession in the electoral roll is shown as "mazdoori" (labour). Learned counsel says that since he is a daily wager, therefore, he is not covered by the definition of "worker". The interpretation placed by the learned counsel on the term "worker" is not ,borne out by the aforesaid two statutory definitions. The term "worker" in common parlance means a person who does manual labour with his own hands and thus includes the labourer and as such the respondent No,1 has committed no illegality by having accepted his nomination papers as candidate for the worker seat.~~
4. Lastly it is urged that date of scrutiny of nomination papers was 9-1-1992 whereas the nomination papers of Muhammad Saeed, respondent No,2, were accepted on 7-1-1992. I have seen the photostat copy of the impugned order attached with the petition. It appears that first it was written as 7-1-1992 and then it was made as 9-1-1992, which may be due to slip of pen.
5. For what has been stated above, there is no merit in this petition and is, therefore, dismissed in limine.