1976 PLP 79 (PLC)

S. 25-A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), 2(b) (f)

Relief under S. 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969

can be claimed if any right secured or guaranteed infringed

T. B. Associa tion-Charitable Institution Neither an industrial nor commercial establishment-Not within ambit of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 Employee of T. B. Association, held not entitled to seek relief against, termination of service under S. 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Employees' Union v. Messrs Young Women Christian Association, Karachi. 1975 P L C 222 rel. Syed Zafar Rizvi for Appellant. Muhammad Akbar for Respondent. Ghulam Ghous was employed as a Store Keeper in the District T. B. Association, Lyallpur. He was dismissed from service. He filed an application under section 25-A of Vie Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for re-instatement. The learned Junior Labour Court dismissed his application on the ground that the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable and so no relief could be granted to him. He filed this appeal.

2. The rights of the workers are guaranteed or secured under Standing orders Ordinance, 1968. In order to get the relief of re-instatement it is necessary for a worker to prove any of his rights under the said Ordinance had been infringed. The District T. B, Association, Lyallpur is a charitable Institution. It is neither an industrial establishment nor Commercial establishment as defined in section 2 (b) and (f) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, This Ordinance is, therefore, not applicable to this case. If authority be needed reference may be made to Employees' Union v. Messrs Young Women Christian Association, Karachi (1975 P L C 222). In this case Y. W. C. A. was a charitable institution and it was held thus neither it is an industrial nor a commercial establishment and, therefore, the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance do not apply. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that it was not necessary to show that the case was covered under Standing Orders Ordinance but if a worker can prove that his case is covered under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 he would be entitled to get relief under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. His argument was that the question of termination falls in subsection (6) of section 25-A and as such there was no necessity for tin worker to prove that he had any guaranteed or secured right. I find no force in t1iis argument. The relief can only be claimed if any guaranteed or secured right is infringed and it would, therefore, be necessary for the worker to prove that his case falls under the Standing Orders Ordinance. I would, therefore, hold that the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the case of the appellant who was employed in a charitable institution. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.