1. ' GIEJLAM RASO:IL K. SHAIKH, J.-This petition has been filed to challenge the orders passed by the Labour Court and confirmed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
2. ' The respondent is Pakistan Security Printing Corporation Ltd. While the petitioner is the Union of the employees of the Corporation. The factory is situated near Malir. Within the pricircts of the factory there is a farm run by the respondent No, 1 in which vegetables ere grow L for sale. There are also some fruit trees. The Corporation had employee 8 malls to work in the farm.
3. ' It is the case of the petitioner union that the malls were not being paid the minimum wages of Rs, 140 per month in accordance with law and other facilities as allowed by the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were also denied to them. It was also the case that facilities and benefits available to other workmen in terms of the Settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent from time to time including the gratuity, provident fund etc. Were also not extended to those malls.
4. ' The malls aggrieved by the denial of the benefits approached the petis. Tioner-Union.
5. Consequently, a representation was made to the respondent who refused to accede to the request made on behalf of the malls. On 9-10-72 an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance was made to the Labour Court praying for the extension ofallthe benefits to the malls. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the malls were borne on different and separate establishment which was distinct from the establishment working in the Security Printing Press and the number of the mails was leas than 20. It was also peaded that the plantation workers establishment was neither an industrial establishment nor commercial establishment and, therefore, the Staading Orders Ordinance was not applicable. Lastly, it was pleaded that the malls were being paid more than Rs, 140 per month. Both the sides filed affidavits.
6. ' The learned Chairman of the Labour Court entertained the view that there was no evidence except the bare word of the General Secretary that the malls and the workers of the factory were borne on one establishment. A contention was raised that the plantation establishment was within the precincts of the factory and as such it was one and the same establishment. This contention was overruled. It was also held that there was no connection between the two establishments. On the basis of these findings the application was dismissed by order dated 9-1-73.
7. ' Aggrieved by this an appeal was filed before the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and it was dismissed by order dated 26-3-73. After reproducing the definition of the term 'factory' it was observed that it was true that the farm was situated within the precincts of the Corporation and thus technically the farm would be called a factory but there was nothing in the definition of the term "factory" to suggest that the Management of the factory could not establish two independent units within the premises and the precincts of the factory = as the premises of a factory be large enough to establish not one but many, and in case two factories were independent the Court would have to go into the question as to whether the factory employed 50 persons or less. It was also observed that the farm though run by the Corporation was quite a separate unit which produced vegetables and fruits and was an independent unit. A few instances of other businesses were quoted to show that the mere fact that the business conducted within the precincts of the factory would not entitle the persons employed in connection with that business to claim the benefits wider the Standing Orders Ordinance. It was, of course, conceded that the farm was situated within the precincts of the Corporation and thus technically the farm could be called a factory.
8. ' To assail these orders the present petition was filed on 19-5-73. It was contended before us on behalf of the petitioner that since the farm was situated within the precincts of the factory it was a factory and the establishment employed on the farm were entitled to the same benefits as were allowed to the establishment working in the factory itself.
9. ' West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance has laid down certain benefits for the workmen. This Ordinance applies to industrial and commercial establishments where 20 or more workmen are employed, According to section 2 (f) industrial establishment means- (1)
(2) factory as defined in clause (j) of section 2 of the Factories Act, 1934.
10. The definition of factory provided by the Factories Act runs as under:- " '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."
11. ' This definition uses the expression 'any premises including the precincts thereof. Consequently, there can be no doubt that the word 'premises' used in the definition of factory is a generic term meaning open land or land with buildings or buildings alone. So the precinct ordinarily means the limit bound or exterior line encompassing a place.
12. ' This, however, does not conclude the matter as in this very definition it is stated that there must be working 10 or more workers before the establishment can be brought within the meaning of the factory. Here, I would lay emphasis on the word "worker" which has also been defined by section 2
(h) of the Factories Act. It reads as under:- " '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 any person solely employed in a clerical capacity in any room place where no manufacturing process is being carried on."
13. ' Before a psrsen can be treated to bo a worker he must satisfy the conditions laid down by the aforesaid definition. It is not enough that the farm run by the respondent is situated within the premises of the factory and the persons employed in connection with the farm are working there.
14. Apparently the worker under the Act means a person employed, whether for wages or not in any manufacturing process, or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for manufacturing process, or any other kind of work whatsoever incidental to or connected with the manufacturing process, or connected with the subject of the manufacturing process, but it would not include any person solely employed in any place where no manufacturing process is carried on or his work is not directly or indirectly connected with the process A employed in the factory itself. It has not been contended that the malts are in any way connected with any of the jobs provided in the factory. Consequently, it was rightly held that the malls were borne on distinct establishment unrelated with the factory. Thus there can be no escape from the conclusion that the malls do rot fall within the definition of "worker", and therefore, neither the Factory Act nor the Commercial Industrial Disputes Ordinance is applicable to them.
15. ' The learned counsel for the respondent also raised a preliminary objection that this petition was not competent as the Union could not be said to be an aggrieved party within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution and could not file the petition. a is not necessary to decide this objection as the petition fails on the other ground.
16. ' In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.