' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---This judgment will dispose of three petitions as a common question of law arises in these petitions.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners in Civil Petition No,66 of 1992 who are Veternany Assistant Stock and Technical Assistant of Livestock Department formed a Trade Union. Similarly, the petitioners in Civil Petition No,67 of 1992 are working as Baildars, Pallaydars, Malis,.Tractor and other vehicle drivers, cleaners, helpers, etc. And they formed a Trade Union. In the case of Civil Petition No,74 of 1992, the Forest employees also formed a Union. The Registrar issued a certificate in favor of each petitioner and they were certified as the Collective Bargaining Agents.
3. The Government being aggrieved against the issuance of the certificate by the Registrar challenged his orders in each case by filing Constitution petitions in the High Court. The learned High Court accepted these petitions and the certificates of registration issued in favor of the petitioners by the Registrar, Trade Unions, Baluchistan, were set aside. It was declared that the order of the Registrar was withoL: lawful authority and of no legal effect. The learned High Court came to the conclusion that all those who approached the Registrar as members of the Union were not "workmen". It was, however, observed that those members of the Union who fall within the category of the "workers"/"workmen" are entitled to file fresh application for registration to the Registrar, Trade Unions.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are employed in the industrial concern run by the respondents therefore, the requirement of law has been fulfilled by the petitioners. The learned counsel, however, admitted that the petitioners are civil servants but submitted that they being workers working in the establishment of the respondent were entitled to be registered by the Registrar, Trade Unions. He further stated that the petitioners are not engaged in the affairs of the State therefore, on this score also the order of the High Court is not tenable in law. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has been seriously contested by the Advocate-General, Baluchistan. He referred to the Baluchistan Civil Servants Act, 1974. Section 2(b) of the Act provides as hereunder:- "A civil servant means a person who is member of Civil Service of the Province of Baluchistan or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the province but does not include--
(i) ...... .
(ii)
(iii) a person who is worker or workman as defined in Factories Act, 1934 or Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923."
5. "Worker" has been defined in section 2(h) of the Factories Act as follows:-- "' Worker' means a person employed directly or through an agency whether for wages or not, in any manufacturing process, or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process, or in any other kind of work whatsoever, incidental to or connected with the subject of the manufacturing process, but does' not include an person solely employed in a clerical capacity in any room or place where no manufacturing process is being carried on)."
6. "Factory" had been defined in section 2(j) as hereunder:--'Factory' means any premises, including the precincts thereof, whereon ten or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on or is ordinarily carried on with or without the aid of power, but does not include a mine, subject to the operation of the Mines Act, 1923 (IV of 1923)."
7. "Employer" has been defined in section 2(e) of the Workmen's Compensation Act as follows:-- "'Employer' includes anybody of persons whether incorporated or not and any managing agent of an employer and the legal representative of a deceased employer, and, when the services of a workman are temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the person with , whom the workman has entered into a contract of service or apprenticeship, means such other person while the workman is working for him."
8. "Workman" has been defined in section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act as follows:- " 'Workman' means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employer's trade or business) who is--
(i) "a railway servant as defined in section 3 of the Railways Act, 1890 (IX of 1890) not permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub-divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, or
(ii) employed on monthly wages not exceeding one thousand five hundred rupees, in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II.
' Whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any person working in the capaity of a member of naval, military or air forces; and any reference to a workman who has been injured shall, where the workman is dead, include a reference to his dependents or any of them."
9. It .Is also relevant to refer to the application of Industrial Relations Ordinance to the case of the petitioners. Section 3(b) specifically bars the application of this Ordinance to any person employed in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen by the Railway, Posts, Telegraph and Telephone Departments.
10. "Establishment" has been defined in section 2(ix) as follows:-- " 'Establishment' means any office, firm, industrial unit, undertaking, shop or premises in which workmen are employed for the purpose of carrying on any industry; and, except in section 22-EE, includes a collective bargaining unit, if any, constituted under that section in any establishment or group of establishments."
11. "Industry" has been defined in section 2(xiv) as follows:-- "' industry' means any business, trade manufacture, service, employment or occupation."
12. "Worker" and "workman" has been defined in section 2(xxviii) as hereunder:-- "'Worker' and 'workman' means any person not falling. Within the definition of employer who is employed (including employment (as a supervisor or as an apprentice) in an establishment or industry for hire or reward either directly or through a contractor .Whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Ordinance in relation to an industrial dispute includes a person who has been dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid off or otherwise removed from employment in connection with or as a consequence of . That dispute or whose dismissal, discharge, retrenchment, lay-off, or removal has led to that dispute but does not include any person--
(a) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(b) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding rupees eight hundred per menses or performs, either because of the nature of duties attached to the officer or by reason by the powers vested in him, functions merely of managerial nature."
13. The learned Advocate-General submitted that no profit is being earned by the respondents.
14. In Employees' Old-Age Benefit Institution v. N.I.R.C. (1988 SCMR 765), this Court approved the decision of the High Court that "the, expression ' administration of the State' is to be interpreted in the limited and narrow sense. In that case, the institution was concerned with providing old-age benefits to the persons serving in industrial, commercial and similar organizations, therefore, its functions were not relatable to any sovereign functions of State.
15. In Employees' Union, Jamia Karachi v. Registrar, Trade Unions, Sindh (1981 PLC 403), it has been observed that "the concept of word ' industry' particularly as a statutory and artificial definition has been given connotes organized activity in purposeful and material pursuit in continuity which is not casual and isolated in nature. In industry cooperation of workman and employer is of necessity required for efficient and smooth running aimed at higher production .Or providing material service. Industrial Relations Ordinance primarily relates to material and economic activity and they have to be interpreted in the same color and scheme of things".
16. In K.G. Old v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labor Court (PLD 1976 Lahore 1097) it has been observed that the use of the expression "Business, trade, manufacture, calling, Service, Employment or Occupation" in the definition of industry in Industrial Relations Ordinance is not in its ordinary dictionary meaning but in its popular and conventional meaning. In the context of industrial and labor laws, these expressions apply to any enterprise, which is organized and is systematic depending substantially, if not entirely, on the cooperation between labor and capital, and having as its object production, distribution and consumption of wealth, or the production or provision of material service. The enterprise as a whole has to be looked at to find out its raison d'etre, and any part of it which is incidental, ancillary of an adjunct cannot determined the character 'of the whole".
17. It has been further held that "it is not sufficient that there be an industrial unit. What is required is that such industrial unit, office, firm, shop must be for industry and for no other purpose".
18. This Court in A.F. Ferguson & Co. v. Sindh Labour Court (PLD 1985 SC 429) approved the decision made in the case of K.G. Old.
19. Recently, in the judgment of this Court in Faqir Muhammad v. Director, National Savings (PLD 1992 SC 127), it has been observed by the learned Chief Justice that "the Department of National Savings, is now administering the savings branch of the State Administration". The learned C.J.
Came to the conclusion as hereunder:-- "I, therefore, would hold that it is engaged in the administration of the State. The appellant undoubtedly is employed in the said Department as a Chowkidar likely any time to guard/protect Government money. The employees of the Supreme Court in this category or for that matter in the Ministries and Departments of the Central Government even if technically be described workmen would, by virtue of the exclusion contained in section 1(3)(b) of the I.R.O., be excluded from the application of the said law. In this behalf it is important to note that innumerable workmen in the Railway, Posts, Telegraph and Telephone Departments would have similarly been excluded from the purview of the Ordinance if they would not have been (by specific) provision made subject to the same in the sani. Clause; namely, section 1(3), clause (b). In other words the employees including workmen in the Railway, Posts, Telegraph and Telephone Departments Would not have been able to seek application of the Industrial Relations Ordinance unless they would not have been specifically declared as covered by the Ordinance."
20. On a difference of opinion, the matter was referred to a third learned Judge of this Court who recorded the following opinion in pares. 6 and 7 of the judgment:-- "But then this is not the end of the matter. There is another aspect which was not brought to the notice of the Bench which heard the appeal but had a material bearing on the fate of the appeal. It is to be noticed that the Labor Court treated his grievance petition as one under Standing Order 12(3), West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and it set aside the order of termination of his services on the sole ground that the said order did not explicitly state the reason why his services were being terminated. Now, the said Ordinance, as the first proviso to section 1(4) thereof states, does not apply to establishment carried on by or under the authority or the Federal or any Provincial Government where statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline are applicable. To the workmen employed therein. In this case, as is very clear from his letter of appointment, the appellant was to be governed by the rules applicable to Government servants. This paragraph 1(7) of the letter stated: 'He will be subject to such laws, orders and instructions as the Government may issue from time to time.'
It needs hardly be pointed out that the rules of service, conduct and discipline framed by the Government are relatable to section 25, Civil Servants Act, and are as such statutory in nature. It was not disputed on behalf of the appellant that these rules were applicable to him. That being so, he belonged to a category of employees to whom the Ordinance did not extend, consequently he could not take advantage of Standing Order 12(3) to challenge his removal from service before the Labor Court.
There is yet another aspect of matter. As an employee of the Federal Government he held a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation. Thus, he was a civil servant within the definition of the term as given in the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Under section 3(2), Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the Federal Service Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of a civil servant. On account of the bar contained in Article 212(2) of the Constitution, the Labor Courts were not competent to entertain the appellant's petition."
21 In the instant case, the primary object of the departments is to implore all avenues for the advancement of particular field and to cater the needs of public-at-large. The cost is to be borne from public funds. They do not run any industry. The function of the Forests Department is to protect the forests from destruction which is necessary for the healthy environment. For the performance of their duties, they make research in their special field. From the nature of their work it cannot be deduced by any stretch of imagination that the respondents are running any industry.
Whatever little business does that is ancillary to the main object. The departments are performing multifarious duties in this behalf but their main function is not changed. The petitioners are not employed to run any industry. The Government is not consuming any wealth from these establishments. The ingredients of an industry are lacking in the present case, therefore, the learned High Court has taken a correct view of the matter.
22. These petitions have no force. The petitions are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused in all these petitions.