MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus MANAGER, MILITARY FARM, JHELUM

Since the two appeals captioned above which arise from the decisions dated 24‑1‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.6, Rawalpindi, involve common questions of fact and law, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The allegation against Mehr Din, appellant, was that he was found stealing away S.M. powder and when he was checked, he on inquiry said that Muhammad Aslam had delivered the substance to him. After holding inquiry both the appellants were dismissed from service.

3. The learned Lower Court has observed that the orders of dismissal are not legal but has dismissed the grievance petitions of the appellants on the ground that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable, inasmuch as the respondent has statutory rules of service and is functioning under the authority of the Government. Learned‑counsel for the appellants has argued that neither the service rules followed by the respondent are statutory nor the respondent is running by or under the authority of the Government. The line of his argument, so far as the rules are concerned,‑is that adoption of Government Servants Rules or Civil Servants Rules would not give them character of statutory rules. On the face of it the argument has no force. The Government Servants Rules and Civil Servants Rules are statutory rules, inasmuch as they have been framed under enactments and were published in the official gazette of the Government. Only these two conditions are necessary to give the character of statutory rules. Learned counsel does not say that the Government Servants Rules have not been adopted. Since admittedly the employees of the respondent are governed by Government Servants Rules, one condition given in second proviso to section 1(4)(c) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 stands satisfied. The other condition is that the establishment must be running either by the Government itself or under the authority of the Government. There is no denying the fact that the Military Farm is meant for the Army. Exh. R‑7 is the Army Regulations Volume‑II and its rule 2(c) deals with services. Rule 2 reads. a‑s under:‑

"2. Component Forces. The regular army comprises the following:‑

(a) Fighting Arms. The Armoured Corps; the Infantry,

(b) Supporting Arms. The Artillery; the Engineers; the signals.

(c) Services. The Army Service Corps; the Army Medical Corps; the Army Ordnance Corps; the Electrical and Mechanical Engineers; the Remounts, Veterinary and Farms Corps "

It is clear that 'services' is a part of regular army and since the'' services' consist of farms also and admittedly the army is under the Government, therefore, the farms are being run by the Central Government. According to clause (c) above, the farms are part of the regular army and as army is maintained by the Government only, the farms are also running under the Government. No private person is entitled to maintain an army. If it is allowed, the result will be civil wars and mutinies. Thus, both the conditions given in the second proviso to section 1(4)(c) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 stand satisfied. The learned Lower Court has thus rightly held that Standing Orders Ordinance is not applicable.

4. The learned lower Court, no doubt, has not recorded any finding on the point whether the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 applies or not but it is evident that section 1 (3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is attracted and the 'said Ordinance is not applicable. Since admittedly the appellants are employed in the Military Farm which is an installation connected with or incidental to the C Armed forces, therefore, the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is not applicable. Section 1(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance,1969 reads as under:‑

"It shall not' apply to any person employed in the Police or any of the Defence services of Pakistan or any service or installation connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan ...."

So, neither the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 nor Standing D Orders Ordinance applies. The result is that the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction.

5. As a result, the appeals fail and are dismissed.

A. E. /533/Lb.P Appeals dismissed.