Malik MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER and others

' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHARY, C.J.--- This petition has been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 8th August, 2005 whereby learned Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by him. Concluding para. Of the impugned judgment is reproduced herein below:-- There is no proof of the fact that the petitioner is a worker within the meaning of the above definition of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, because he has not attached any proof that he is directly engaged in work and dependant upon person?' labour for subsistence living.

Already with the nomination papers the petitioner submitted the declaration of assets on form XIX as required under Rule 12(4) of the Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2005. He owns an agricultural land worth Rs,5,00,000. Only a person directly engaged in work, or is dependant on personal labour, for subsistence living was qualified under section 2(xi) of the Punjab Local Government Election Ordinance, 2000 to contest election to a seat reserved for workers. The learned Returning Officer had the jurisdiction to reject the nomination papers of the petitioner. The appeal has also been dismissed. The concurrent findings recorded by the competent authorities having the jurisdiction, cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This being so, this petition fails and is dismissed.

2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that petitioner filed nomination papers against the seat of Worker Councillor of UC-38, Kohali, Tehsil Sohawa, District Jhelum. The respondent challenged his status to be of worker which prevailed and nomination papers were rejected on 31st July, 2005 by R.O. Holding that he is neither peasant nor Karkon. Appeal filed by him also failed as it has been dismissed on 3rd August, 2005. Consequently, writ petition before the High Court was filed which also failed vide impugned judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is a worker as it has been defined under section 2(xli) of the Punjab Local Government Election Ordinance, 2001 and merely for the reason that he has 250 Kanal barren land would not change his status to be of 'worker'.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent contended that he is a landlord and additionally his case is not covered by the definition of 'worker' given in the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 2002.

5. Learned Additiona1 Advocate-General is also of the opinion that petitioner is not a worker.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant provisions of law and the impugned judgment. Relevant para. Therefrom has been reproduced hereinabove. It is important to note that there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner is the owner of 250 Kanals land. No evidence has been produced by him that he undertakes a manual work to earn his livelihood. Therefore, he does not fall within the definition of worker. Besides petitioner has himself relied upon a certificate issued by the "Five Star Bricks Company", a perusal whereof indicates that he is working as Supervisor with this Company since March, 2003. It is admitted that as far as the Supervisor is concerned he is not to be treated as worker for the purposes of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. Learned High Court on having taken into consideration the relevant provisions of law and facts available on record has decided the controversy which is not open to any exception therefore, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for the impugned judgment.

7. Thus for the foregoing reasons the petition is dismissed and .