1988 PLP 937 (PLC)

Anjuman Faizul Islam, Rawalpindi claims that the provisions of Employees Old‑Age Benefits Act, 1976 do not apply to it because it is neither a commercial organization nor an industrial organization and as such is not an establishment in the light of section 2(e) of the said Act. It has been urged that since the Anjuman is only a charitable organization it cannot be asked to register itself under the Act.

2. The case of the respondents also depends on` the definition of word 'establishment'. It has been urged that the definition of word `establishment' is wide enough to encompass the organization like the petitioner and many similar organizations have already subjected themselves to the operation of the law.

3. Section 2(c) of the Employees' Old‑age Benefits Act, 1976 defines establishment' as under.‑‑ "Establishment means an organization, whether industrial, commercial or otherwise". The case of the petitioner is that according to the aims, objects and constitution of the Anjuman (Annex.`B') the Society receive its income largely from voluntary contributions. Its aims and objects are the protection and care oft lie orphans and other educational and religious pursuits. It has been stated that since the donations received by the Anjuman are uncertain the Anjuman is not a regular employer and all persons engaged in the service of the orphan and Orphanages are not regular employees but are participants in a sacred cause (Para‑ 9(vi)).

4. First of all it may be seen that no doubt the aims and objects of the Anjuman are of a charitable and religious nature, the petitioner has not told the whole story. Para 4(v) indicates that the Anjuman could start or participate in any business or small industry which may fetch reasonable dividends to the Anjuman and help in furthering its aims and objects. It may also be noticed that according to para 7(viii) the Managing Committee will frame bye‑laws, rules and regulations governing the functions, activities and services of its Departments and the entire paid staff and servants. It is true that the money received by the Anjuman either from donations or from the business that it may undertake is to be utilized for charitable purposes. Nevertheless it‑cannot be said that engaging in any business or industry is outside the scope of the Anjuman.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has laid great stress on the principle of ejusdem generis in order to come to a conclusion regarding the meanings of word `establishment'. He is of the view that following the principle the term `otherwise' should be of the same kind as given in the preceding expression of industrial or commercial. This principle is well established and other things being the same this principle has to be followed but it cannot be said that this principle can be applied without any regard to the circumstances of a case or the purpose of the law. The purpose of the Employees' Old‑Age Benefits Act, 1976 is to give an additional benefits to the employees to protect them from the hardships of old‑age when they are no longer fit to work. It is a beneficial legislation and, therefore, the purpose behind this law will have to be kept in mind before applying the principle of ejusdem generis. The organizations which have a certain number of employees working for them have been asked to pay a certain percentage of the salary of the employees to the fund which in turn will try '‑and provide for the old‑age of the employees of such organizations.

6. It is obvious that the petitioner Anjuman has regular employees and a staff and it is for that reason that the provisions of the said Act are attracted. Even though it has been stated that the persons working for the Anjuman are working only as participants in a sacred cause yet it is a fact which has not been denied that the employees are in receipt of regular salaries.

7. Looking at the circumstances of the present case, I do not think that the Anjuman can escape the provisions of the Employees' Old‑Age Benefits Act, 1976, particularly in view of the scope of the activities of the Anjuman. Even otherwise a narrow application of the principle of ejusdem generis will not be justified in the context of a beneficial law, like the present case. 8.???????? In view of these considerations, the writ petition is dismissed. S.Q./A‑349/L? Petition dismissed. ???????????????????????