' MUHAMMAD ZAMAN QURESHI (CHAIRMAN).---A petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was tiled by Col. (Retd.) Feroze Hussain Senior Manager (Adorn.) Army Welfare Trust Cement Plant, Nizampur, impleading Zainul Abidin and others as respondents alleging therein that Army Welfare Trust is registered under Societies Act, 1860. According to the Memorandut of Association, its objects are primarily to provide for the welfare of personnel's who are serving or have served in the Pakistan Army including Adjutant-General's Office, Regular Forces and ex-Servicemen of the Pre-independence Indian Army in all ranks including civilian employees of the Armed Forces and their dependents. The Army Welfare Trust Projects Fund, G.H.Q., A.-G.'s Branch (W&R) Directorate, Rawalpindi has also been registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The funds of the Army Welfare Trust vest in the W&R Directorate, Adjutant-General Branch, Rawalpindi.
2. It was further stated that all the original members of the Trust were senior Army Officers. The Army Welfare Trust is an establishment which is directly connected with and incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan. In view of section 1(3)(a) the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 are not applicable to the Army Welfare Trust. The respondents are therefore, not entitled to form a trade union and apply for registration, yet respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are styling themselves as President and Vice-President of Awami Labour Union, Army Welfare Trust Cement Plant, Nizampur. Respondents are not performing their duties who are involved in pursuading workmen to join trade union during working hours. They are also extending threats of injury to life and limb and, thus, have committed unfair labour practice. It was further stated in the application that respondents have submitted an application for registration of the union. In view of that position, it was prayed that the respondents are restrained from committing further unfair labour practice and respondent No, 3 should be restrained from issuing certificate of registration. An application under Regulation 32(2j of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 was also filed for seeking interim relief.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents, who joined the proceedings and filed the reply statement to the main petition as well as an application for grant of interim relief. Besides the above petition, three other petitions were also filed by other parties on the same controversy. All the applications were disposed of by Mr. Anwarul Hassan, Member, N.I.R.C. Through a single decision recorded on 2-1-1997 whereby the petition filed by Army Welfare Trust was granted. The present appeal filed by Mr. Zainul Abidin, General Secretary, Awami Labour Union, Army Welfare Trust, Nizampur Cement Plant is directed against the said decision.
4. To support the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant strongly argued that the Army Welfare Trust has two other units, namely, Badin Sugar Mills and A.C. Wah Cement. In both these units trade unions are functioning since, 1984. Discrimination cannot be allowed to be made in respect of the Respondent union only. It was further argued that it is a mixed question of law facts as to whether the Respondents union is connected with and incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan. No evidence was recorded by the learned Member of the Commission before delivering the impugned judgment. In this connection, reliance was placed on a decision reported in PLD 1958 SC 153. The next contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant was that the object of the Foundation is welfare of the retired Army Personnel and not of active Army. Therefore, the industrial units run by the Army Welfare Trust including the present unit are installations not connected with and incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan, but they are carrying, on industry just like all other private industries. In this connection, reliance was placed by him on following cases:- ' 1992 PLC 405, PLD 1991 SC 353, 1988 SCM R 765, 1975 PLC 361, 1976 PLC 322, 1974 PLC 10, 1979 PLC 148 and 260, PLD 1983 SC 133, 1983 SCM R 1101 and 1990 PLC 218.
5. Lastly, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that after appellant union was registered, an application under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 was not competent. It was further submitted that during pendency of the application before the Commission, many workers were terminated on account of their trade 'union activities.
6. Replying to the contentions raised above, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that to support their case, the respondent had appended a copy of Memorandum and 'Articles of Association of the Army Welfare Trust with the petition which was sufficient evidence to resolve the controversy in the case. Referring to the certificate of registration of the Trust and the personnel who are the beneficiaries, it was urged that provisions of section 1(3) (a) of the I.R.O., 1969 were fully attracted. To support his contention, he also relied on the following decisions:-- ' 1976 PLC 855, 1978 PLC 261, 1991 PLC 605 and 1990 PLC 281.
7. It was further argued that as the respondents were not performing their duties and on the contrary .Were involved in pursuading the workmen to join the non-existent trade unions during the working hours, besides extending serious threats of injury to life and limb, they 'were committing acts of unfair labor practice and in order to refrain them from thpse activities, the petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 was competently filed.
8. We have heard the arguments of the parties at full length and have also perused the record. To determine the controversy involved, it appears appropriate to reproduce hereunder the word "Beneficiaries" as given in the Memorandum of Association of the Trust:- "(1) 'Beneficiaries' shall mean citizens of Pakistan including FATA and citizens of Azad Kashmir who are serving or have served in the Pakistan Army including Azad Kashmir Regular Force and ex- servicemen of the Pre-independence Indian Army in all ranks, including Civilian Employees of the Armed Forces and their dependents."
A bare reading of the above would show that "beneficiary" shall also be citizens of Pakistan, FATA, Azad Kashmir who are serving in the Pakistan Army including Azad Kashmir Regular Forces and civilian employees of the Armed Forces and their dependents besides ex-servicemen of the Army.
It cannot, therefore, by any stretch of imagination be said, that the object and purpose of the Army Welfare Trust and its units is not connected with or incidental to Armed Forces within the meaning of section 1(3) of the I.R.O., 1969. The law to be interpreted is as follows: S.3(3), "It shalt not apply to any person employed in the Police or any of the Defence Services of Pakistan and any services or installations connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan including an Ordnance Factory maintained by the Federal Government or to any person employed in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen by the Railways, Posts, Telegraph and Telephone Department."
9. The above provision of law was interpreted by the Lahore High Court in the case "United Builders and Associates v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,1 and others" wherein it was held:- "The express provisions of the law made the Ordinance inapplicable to any service connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan. If the Army is directly engaged on the construction of a road, or a building or is getting it constructed by employing a Contractor or Sub-Contractors then it is for the time being a matter of the nature of the construction. As long as the construction lasts and remains the responsibility of the Armed Forces, irrespective of the use to which it will be put when completed the project remains connected with and incidental to the Armed Forces itself.
A duty undertaken by the Armed Forces to have it constructed either through its own manpower or by employing other establishes this connection. The source of the finance the ultimate use of the building are all irrelevant for determining its character while the construction is in the hand and control of the Army Authorities."
10. The above provision of law was again examined by Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court in the case of National Radio and Telecommunication Corporation Employees and Workers' Union, Haripur v. Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.-W.F.P. And 3 others (1990 PLC 218). The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:- "Regarding the applicability of section 1(3)(a) of I.R.O., in the case of the petitioner union, again we find that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the light of the factual aspect referred to in the impugned judgment of the learned Labour Court, has no substance inasmuch as from the material brought on the record, there is no doubt in our minds that notwithstanding the fact of registration of N.R.T.C. As a Private Limited Company, the Organization is certainly connected with and incidental to the Armed Forces as is evident from the Constitution thereof as also the total financial and complete administrative control of Government of Pakistan through Ministries of Defence and Communication. It is also undisputed fact that the N.R.T.C. Does manufacture electronic equipment for the supply to and for the use of the Armed Forces of Pakistan.
' In this context of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that the persons employed in, or working for, the N.R.T.0 which is an installation connected with the Armed Forces of Pakistan, or even remotely connected therewith, cannot avail of the provisions of I.R.O. In matters of -err forcing their rights otherwise conferred on them thereunder by way of forming or getting registered, a trade union. We are, therefore, of the firm opinion that both the learned Lower Forums have rightly held the deregistration of the petitioner union as valid in view of the provisions of I.R.O. Being inapplicable thereto under section 1(3) (a) (ibid). We drew strength, in this view of ours, from decisions in cases United Builders and Associates v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1 and others, 1976 PLC 855, Din Muhammad alias Dona v. Manager, Army Stud Farm, Dipalpur, District Sahiwal 1978 PLC 261, Rehmat Gill and others v. Quetta Cantonment Board PLD 1983 SC 113: Wall Bofors Workers Trade Union v. Registrar, Trade Union, Rawalpindi ported judgment c this Court in Civil Revision No,26 of 1986. (Government o N.-W.F.P. Etc. v. N.R.T.C. And others decided on 4-3- 1986)."
11. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Superior Courts, we fin( that the learned Member of the Commission was justified in accepting till petition filed by the respondent. This appeal has, therefore, no merits and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties, however, to bear their costs.