1998 PLC 56 (PLP)

S.1(3)(a)

Application against establishment

Competency-- Establishment being Educational Institution established to promote welfare of retired/discharged personnel of Army, run by Trust on non-commercial basis would not fall within definition of industry, therefore, such institution was immune from law under S. 1(3)(a), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and thus, the Ordinance was not applicable to respondent (establishment)

National Industrial Relations Commission lacked jurisdiction in such. matter

Application in terms of S. 22-A(8)(g), Industrial Relations Ordinance was not maintainable in circumstances. Abdul Hafeez Amjad for Petitioner. Muhammad Latif for Respondents. Mst. Rouhi Nasim daughter of Muhammad Irshad, Lady Teacher F.F. Junior Model School No. 2, Tipu Sultan Road, Nowshera has filed this petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 alongwith stay application under Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C. (P&F) Regulations, 1973 against Fauji Foundation through its Director Welfare and two others, alleging therein that she is a work person and performing her duties as a Lady Teacher in the F.F. Junior Model School No. 2, Tipu Sultan Road, Nowshera running by the respondents establishment to promote the Welfare of the Retired/Discharge persons of Army, carrying on their business as an industry as defined under the provisions of I.R.O., 1969. The petitioner further added that she had been performing her duties to the best of her efforts. Being a trade unionist by her temperament she used to point out the discrepancies as well as irregularities done by the respondents and this aspect of the matter was disliked by the respondent No. 3 and particularly the Superintendent namely Dariya Khan.

2. The respondents contested the petition by filing written statement and reply to the stay application on the factual as well as on the legal grounds.

3. In short, she alleged the unfair labour practice by victimising her, against the respondents due to her trade union activities which falls under section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969.

4. I heard both the learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the respondents urged that the petitioner is not a worker/workperson under the I.R.O., 1969 and I.R.O., is not applicable to the respondents establishment being an educational institution run by a trust on non-commercial basis to promote the welfare of retired/discharge personnel of Army.

5. The alleged facts narrated in the petition may be considered sympathetically even on the humanitarian grounds after going into the merits of the case, but in the adequate forum, apparently it reveals from the perusal of the record that there exist neither any union nor there is mentioned about any union activities and mere alleging herself as unionist and to take the shelter of unfair labour practice by the petitioner is not justified, at least the petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O- 1969 read with section 15 of the said Ordinance is not attracted in the matter mid the petitioner cannot invoke the Jurisdiction of this Commission.

6. Being an Educational Institution carrying for the purpose to promote welfare of retired/discharge personnel of Army run by a Trust on non commercial basis does not fall in the definition of the industry because an industry concerned must be a branch of manufactures and trade. Therefore, the respondents Educational Institution is immune of law under section 1(3)(a) of the I.T.O., 1969 and as such the I.R.O. 1969 is not applicable to this Institution. The petitioner has come with inchoate right being lake of jurisdiction to this Commission.

7. After my above discussion and without going into the merits of the case I dismiss the petition. Stay Order dated 14-12-1996 is recalled. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to record room after completion. A.A./291/N.I.R.C. Petition dismissed.