1986 PLP 781 (PLC)

Nemo for Applicant. M. Bashir Awan for Respondent. Applicant was employed as primary teacher for imparting education to the children of the mills staff. Her services were terminated by letter, dated 13‑9‑1984 without showing any reason. She then served a grievance notice, dated 22‑9‑1984 claiming herself to be a worker under the provisions of S.O. Ordinance and then filed the present petition for her re‑instatement with consequential benefits.

2. In the reply statement, the respondent denied the applicability of S.O. Ordinance on the applicant and pleaded that she was employed on 6 months probation in a school which has a separate entity. Her termination was in accordance with law and so this Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.

3. In support of her case, only the applicant appeared as her witness. On behalf of the respondent affidavit in evidence of one Liaquat Ali Khan, Administrative Officer, was filed but he was not cross‑examined.

4. I have heard Mr. M. Bashir Awan, counsel for the respondent. Neither any oral arguments have been advanced in this case on behalf of the applicant nor any written submissions were made though ample opportunity was provided to her. I have accordingly examined the material on record.

5. The only point, which possess for consideration in this case is whether the applicant is covered by the provisions of S.O. Ordinance and can be termed as a worker. Mr. Awan submitted that admittedly the applicant was appointed as a Primary School Teacher in a school, which is meant only for the benefit of the children of mill staff, and that free education is provided in that school. His submission is that it is an independent unit situated outside the mill premises in the staff colony and so it does not come within the definition of an industry. The question whether Educational Institutions are covered by the provisions of Labour Laws has been examined in a number of proceedings by superior Courts of this country. It has repeatedly been held that any institution where education is imparted will not be covered by the Labour Laws. Reliance can safely be placed on 1975 P 1L C 354 and 1981 P L C

403. This point was also recently considered by the Hon'ble Chairman of Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi in Appeal No. KAR‑225‑84, and in the decision, dated 20‑11‑1985 it was held that Educational Institutions or the Training Centre were not industries and so the cases pertaining to these institutions would be excluded from the purview of Labour Laws. In a case No.80/83 my learned brother Mr. Ghous Muhammad of Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur also held the same view and the school being run by a Cement Industry was considered to be separate from the industry itself.

6. In view of these decisions I am of the firm view that the school run by the respondent for the free education of only its children car its Staff members and would be an independant unit and would not be covered by the term "industry" nor its employees would be deemed to be workmen. On this score alone, this petition is not maintainable and so it is dismissed. A. E. Petition dismissed.