' This appeal is 'directed against the order dated 13-11-1995 of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mardan whereby he accepted the complaint of respondent No.1 under section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and recalled the registration of the appellant with the observation that employees of P.T.B. may form an association if permissible under any other law or rule including the provisions of the Ordinance.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Registrar, Trade Union, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar, respondent No.1 filed a complaint under section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mirdan to the effect that the appellant union was registered as a trade anion vide Certificate No. 42/89, dated 5-7-1989 but subsequently the Pakistan Tobacco Board (respondent No.2) applied for reconsideration of the matter on the ground that Pakistan Tobacco Board is not an industry as defined in section 2(xiv) of the I.R.O. and, therefore, the appellant union could not be registered as a trade union as the provisions of the Ordinance (ibid) are not applicable to the respondent Board. The appellant union contested the complaint and evidence of the parties was recorded, on the assessment whereof the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mardan vide his judgment dated 13-11-1995 accepted the complaint of respondent No.1 and cancelled the Registration Certificate of the union and observed that the appellant union may form association if permitted by the law.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
4. The Registrar appeared as P.W.1 who stated that P.T.B. is not an industrial and commercial Organisation but in fact is a Research Institution, while on behalf of Pakistan Tobacco Board, respondent No.2, Qazi Aftab Ahmad produced copies of the record which were placed on file as Exh.R.W.1/1 (functions of the Pakistan Tobacco Board), Exh. R.W.1/2 (statement of account ending June, 1990), Exh. R.W.1/3 (sanction letter dated 18-2-1990 regarding grant of research allowance to the officers of the Board), Exh. R.W.1/4 to Exh. R.W.1/6 and Exh. R.W.1/9 (correspondence between the Registrar and the Board), Exh. R.W.1/7 and Exh. R.W.1/8 (Agenda/working paper and minutes of the 87 meeting), Exh. R.W.1/10 (Financial Review of the Board), Exh. R.W.1/11 showing the sanction of the Government to collect Tobacco Cess by the Board, and Exh. R.W.1/12 (Notification dated 16-10-1990).
Khalilur Rehman, Administrative Officer, P.T.B. also appeared for respondent No.2 who stated that P.T.B. was established by P.T.B. Ordinance, 1968 and its functions are prescribed by law which are mainly research and educational, and the Board is not commercial or industrial concern. Mr. Ajmali Khan, Senior Vice-President of respondent No.1 appeared as R.W. 2 who deposed that vide Exh.R.W.1/3 only few officers were entitled research allowance and the remaining were not given the said allowance.
5. The question arising in this appeal for determination is whether P.T.B. is an industry and its employees are workers within the meaning of section 2(xiv) and (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. According to section 2(xiv) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 the word 'Industry' means "any business, trade, manufacture, calling, service, employment or occupation" and as per clause (xxviii) '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 mensem or performs, either because of the nature of duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers Vested in him, functions mainly of managerial nature". Pakistan Tobacco Board is a statutory body which was created by Ordinance-I of 1968, and its function as per section 6 are as follows:-- "6. Functions of the Board.--The functions of the Board shall be--
(a) to regulate, control and promote the export of tobacco and tobacco products and to fix grading standards.
(b) to undertake and assist research connected with tobacco industry, impart training in tobacco testing and generally to take measures in the interest of tobacco industry.
(c) to render assistance for the development of new tobacco growing areas and establishment of model farms, to organise and assist special research connected with tobacco cultivation and generally to render assistance for improving tobacco production.
(d) to collect statistics on any matter relating to tobacco and tobacco industry."
The bare reading of the above section would manifest that the Board's function was to undertake research for the improvement and development of A tobacco industry and to render advice to tobacco growers. It has been admitted by Ajmali Khan R.W. 2 that Pakistan Tobacco Board has no showroom, shop or industry and it does not sell anything but again in the same breath stated that it sells tobacco and seeds produced in its farms. He admitted that Board has four research stations located at Mardan, Mansehra, Okara and Kunja. He stated that chess was imposed by the Federal Government to meet the financial expenditure of the Board. He admitted that the employees of the Board are governed by their gazetted service rules. From the above quoted law and the deposition of the appellant's representative, it is evident that Board is a research oriented Organisation and, thus, is not an industry within the meaning of section 2(xiv) and its B employees cannot be termed as worker within the definition of section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The word 'industry' came under consideration in case of 'K.G. Old, Principal, Christian Technical Training Center, Gujranwala v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court, Northern Zone and 6 others (PLD 1976 Lah. 1097) wherein it was interpreted as under:-- "Given their plain ordinary dictionary meaning words used to define Industry, words which have been always, and are even now, a part of the definition, viz., Business, Trade, Manufacture, Calling, Service, Occupation are of the widest amplitude and include in their sweep every conceivable human activity which is not casual, recreational or a past time. Literal construction certainly leads to that end and to no other. However, one accepted principle of interpretation is that use in a statute, amending or otherwise, of a term which has received a judicial construction gives rise to the presumption that the term is used in that sense."
' In another unreported judgment of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.74 of 1976 in case of 'Pakistan Central Cotton Committee, Karachi v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.III, Lyallpur, similar question as in hand was dealt with wherein it was held as under:-- "The function of the Pakistan Central Cotton Committee, petitioner is to undertake agricultural and technological research. This is akin to a function carried on by an Educational Institution. The Government of Pakistan is to be advised by the Pakistan Central Cotton Committee (petitioner) so that cotton growing is conducted in a manner which is beneficial to the country. Unless there is a direct nexus between the mills and the Pakistan Central Cotton Committee, its employees cannot be treated as 'workmen'. In the present situation, the mills are not advised directly and, therefore, there is no nexus between the two. In fact there is a comprehensive programme going on in the Research Institute in which people from outside countries, especially RCD Countries, participate and are taking training. In short, respondent No.2 is a Research Institution. It is a non-profit-making organization and the work done by it cannot be assimilated with what may be described as an industrial process. The enterprise, if looked as a whole, does not indicate that it can be considered as ' industry'. In this view of the matter the certification accorded to respondent No.2 as C.B.A. by the Registrar of Trade Unions is also of no avail."
The impugned judgment is well-founded and well-reasoned hence, no c exception thereto can be taken. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.