1987 PLP 485 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 16th December, 1986. This is an appeal under section 37(3) of I.R.O., 1969. The facts of the case are that the appellants were in the employment of the Government Seed Farm, Shikarpur since 1964. The said Seed Farm was under the control and management of A.D.C. which was, subsequently in the year 1972, transferred to Director Agricultural, Sind, Hyderabad. The appellants asked for the fixation of their pay and other allowances and benefits. They were not paid their wages from October, 1982 to 9th September, 1982. On 9th September, 1982 they were orally informed that their services had been terminated. They give grievance notice. In response to the notice of the Labour Court. The respondent appeared and filed statement on 29‑3‑1982. The appellant in support of their case have filed affidavit of Mubarak, the applicant No.3 who has deposed as outlined above. The respondents in support of their contentions have filed affidavit of Sarfaraz Moughal, the respondent No.2 who has deposed as outlined above. I have heard the parties. The three issues are worth consideration. These issues are: ‑ (1) Whether the Rice Research Institute is Commercial or industrial Establishment? (2) Whether the applicants are workmen as defined under Standing Order 2(i) or Section 2 (xxviii) of the I.R.O. , 1969? (3) Whether the services of the appellant have been illegally terminated? Since issues Nos. 1 and 2 are colateral, I, therefore, would like to discuss and decide both together. The definition of workman is provided under Standing Order 2(1) which reads as "means any person employed in any Industrial or Commercial Establishment to do skilled or unskilled manual or clerical work for hire or reward" The definition of workman also is provided under section 2 (xxviii) of the I.R.0. , 1969. This definition is wider than that provided in the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1969. Both these definition provide that only the person, who is employed in Commercial or Industrial Establishment can be said as workman. Now it is to be seen whether the Rice Research Institute is a commercial or industrial establishment. The definition of Commercial and Industrial Establishments are provided under Standing Order 2(b) and (f). In view of these definitions I find that the Rice Research Institute is not Commercial and Industrial Establishment and is not covered by the definitions provided under Standing Order 2(b) and (f). It is A working only on the Research of Rice and not making procurement and sale of rice, so as it may be said as Commercial Establishment. It is also not an Industrial Establishment because it is not money making concern. Consequently, the Rice Research Institute cannot be said as Commercial or Industrial Establishment. As held above, the Rice Research Institute is not a Commercial or Industrial Establishment as such the appellants cannot be considered as employees of any Industrial or Commercial Establishment and as workmen. Besides the appellant No.3 Mubarak has admitted that he was working as Tractor Driver at Government Seed Farm, Lodran and the appellant Misri used to supervise over the cultivation and the other appellants used to cultivate the land at Government Seed Farm Lodran. In view of such admission I find that the appellants were working as Agricultural workers and not as Industrial workers. As such a result of the above discussion, I find that the Research Institute is not Commercial or Industrial Establishment the appellants are not workmen. The appellants are not competent file either grievance application under section 25‑A, I.R.O. or under section 37(3) of the I.R.O., 1969, as the Labour Laws are applicable to their case. For the reasons given above, I hereby dismiss the appeal. K.Y.H./887/Lb. Appeal dismissed.